@nytimes DNC failed 2 get dismissed-NOW w/STANDING in FED CRT of TN http://www.scribd.com/doc/83543713/TN-2 ... to-Dismiss POTUS eligibility issue 2 B heard on merits #tcot

Irion would probably opine at the successful guillotining of his client that it was a hopeful sign that the head didn't bounce too hard on the ground.

Irion would probably opine at the successful guillotining of his client that it was a hopeful sign that the head didn't bounce too hard on the ground.

Irion would probably opine at the successful guillotining of his client that it was a hopeful sign that the head didn't bounce too hard on the ground.

Below is the partial ruling from the Tennessee court. The trial date will be in the very near future,Fed Court: Eligibility Question “Important and Substantive.“The Court finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the Presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”“The issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the Presidency is certainly substantial.
[snip more quotes]
This is a direct slap in the head to let America know that I can challenge and overturn the election of 2008 if people will just get behind me.

Here's what Dummett says about the federal court's denial of their motion to remand:


O'RLY? I guess this is the standard "this loss is a signal of how strong our case really is" birfer thinking.

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/letter- ... 8-election

WND EXCLUSIVE
Judge wants definition of 'natural born citizen'
'Resolution of this federal issue will resolve the case'

by Bob Unruh

A federal judge has determined in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility for a state ballot that the meaning of the constitutional phrase “natural born citizen” is “important and not trivial.”

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”

“This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”

Van Irion, whose Liberty Legal Foundation brought the case, alleges the plan by Tennessee Democrats to register Obama as their nominee for president opens a case, under state law, of negligent misrepresentation and fraud or intentional misrepresentation because of doubts about Obama’s eligibility.

Nothing in that article indicating that the quotes come from a judge's denial of Aryan's motion to remand.

Did I miss that paperwork?

Jack Ryan is your friend.

In other words, the Court finds little risk that “the federal courts will be unduly burdened by a rush of state law cases” challenging the constitutional qualifications of the incumbent President of the United States to hold the office and stand for re-election.

It's fun for WND to report every failure as a success, but this case ain't over yet.

Motion to intervene jus tertii, for the United States and all our honorable law-abiding Armed Service members (Chief Judge Lamberth, USDC-DC permitted similar docketing), for reconsideration and amendment of the opinion, sua sponte, of the 4/13/12 Order of US District Judge S. Thomas Anderson denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to State Court.

Paul Risenhoover posted this on his scribd, "Irion v Obama Taitz Marijuana Natural Born Citizen Tornado Diet Washington Post NYTimes csmonitor cctv Taiwan Formosa mainichi"

12th Day of Ziv?

Docket Update...
...
2012-05-03 - Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (b)(6)

C. Defendants’ Argument that the Will of the People Overrides the Constitution Negates a Primary Purpose of the Constitution

The Defendants argue that “the determination of whether a candidate for President of the United States is constitutionally qualified to hold that office rests, in the first instance with the electorate.” Doc. 5, Defs.’ Mot. at 11. This statement again reflects a complete lack of understanding regarding Constitutional protections.

U.S. District Court
Western District of Tennessee (Memphis)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12-cv-02143-STA-cgc

Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. et al
Assigned to: Judge S. Thomas Anderson
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question

Date Filed: 02/23/2012
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 370 Fraud or Truth-In-Lending
Jurisdiction: Federal Question


05/14/2012 22 MOTION for Leave to File Consolidated Reply in Support of Motions to Dismiss by Democratic National Committee, Chip Forrester, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Tennessee Democratic Party. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Stranch, J.) (Entered: 05/14/2012)

05/14/2012 23 REPLY to Response to Motion re 21 Response in Opposition to Motion, 20 Response in Opposition to Motion, 19 Response in Opposition to Motion, to Dismiss filed by Democratic National Committee, Chip Forrester, National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc., Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Stranch, J.) (Entered: 05/14/2012)

This is not the first, nor even the twentieth, case challenging whether President Obama satisfies Article II’s requirements to hold the Office of President of the United States. However, as even Plaintiffs must concede, “[e]xactly zero federal courts have ruled on the merits of applying Article II eligibility requirements to candidate Obama.” (Dkt. No. 19 at 2). This statistic is not born of coincidence; it is the result mandated by law. The majority of courts addressing this issue have held that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge President Obama’s qualifications, and the remaining courts have similarly dismissed these suits on other procedural grounds.

Defendants DNC and Wasserman-Schultz are not proper defendants because they are not “statewide political parties” or even affiliated with the executive committee of TNDP. Similarly, because it falls to the “statewide political party” to identify the nominee, Chip Forrester, who is chairman of the TNDP, should also be dismissed as this case seeks to enjoin the actions of the TNDP, not Mr. Forrester personally. These parties appear to have only been named either because Plaintiffs failed to properly investigate the nature of their claims or, more likely, to harass the political opponents of the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, a Rule 11 motion will soon be filed by the Defendants seeking sanctions for Plaintiffs’ clear violations of Rule 11 in naming these parties.