He probably wants Justices Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves because they were appointed by the Soetoro guy. Not that it matters.

He probably wants Justices Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves because they were appointed by the Soetoro guy. Not that it matters.

"Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that ... respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not 'eligible to the office of president,…' Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition," the motion explains.

Laurence Elgin, one of those coordinating the efforts to reveal the problems with following the Constitution in the United States, also announced a new organization and website, the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund, to pursue cases that defend the U.S. legal system and the Constitution.

He told WND that the Hollister case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."

Col. John Eidsmoe and the Wisconsin Tea Party

MADISON — Following is the statement of Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Mike Tate on the news that neo-Confederate author Col. John Eidsmoe, who since has withdrawn, had been invited to speak to a Wisconsin "Tea Party" rally April 15 in Wausau.

"The Wisconsin Tea Party leadership invited Col. John Eidsmoe to speak to their April 15 event in Wausau. They showed tremendous lack of judgment in extending their invitation to Eidsmoe, whose bonafides include membership in a group that believes slavery was ordained by God and who only a few months ago praised Jefferson Davis at the expense of Abraham Lincoln.

Every major Republican candidate in Wisconsin has embraced the Tea Party, and now they must ask themselves how this movement came to be associated with the likes of John Eidsmoe.

[...]

John Eidsmoe is a frequent lecturer and debater at colleges, universities, churches, and civics groups. As a constitutional attorney, he has successfully litigated court cases involving First Amendment religious freedom and has defended home education and Christian schools, championed the right of students and teachers to study the Bible in public schools, debated ACLU attorneys on radio and television, and served on the Ten Commandments Legal Defense Team. He is an ordained pastor in the Association of Free Lutheran Congregations, and with his family (he and his wife have been married over 30 years, have three children: David, Kirsten and Justin) he lives in rural Pike Road, Alabama.
John Eidsmoe Portrait
He holds five degrees in law, theology, and political science. These include two doctorates, one in law from the University of Iowa, and one in ministry from the Oral Roberts University. He earned his Masters of Divinity degree from Lutheran Brethern Seminary and his Master of Arts degree in biblical studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. His Bachelor of Arts degree in political science is from St. Olaf College. He is also a graduate of the Air Command & Staff College and the Air War College.

He has taught legal history and church history at law schools and seminaries. He currently serves as a professer of constitutional law and related subjects at the Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University, Montgomery, Alabama, where his students have twice given him the Outstanding Professor Award. He is also an Adjunct Professor at Birmingham Theological Seminary. A constitutional attorney and retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, Colonel Eidsmoe has also taught church history and other subjects in various seminaries.

He has authored 12 books, including Christianity & the Constitution, Columbus & Cortez, and the video series titled The Institute on the Constitution. A Second Degree Black Belt with the American Taekwondo Foundation, Colonel Eidsmoe also serves as Regional Representative for the Gospel Martial Arts Union, is an avid horseman and skier, and tries to get 8 hours of sleep every week.

According to John Eidsmoe, the US Constitution was heavily influenced by Christianity. That is the thesis of his book Christianity and the Constitution. Published in 1987 by Baker House, the book is 415 pages in length.

The book leads off with a survey of various philosophical schools popular in the 18th Century, not least of which was Calvinism. Mr. Eidsmoe states that a majority of Americans were Calvinist, but fails to demonstrate its influence on the Founders.

The book deals briefly with "John Locke's social contract theory," which is said to be the "secular expression" of the covenant. Mr. Eidsmoe equates the two, a usual tactic of Christian Federalists to explain away the obvious secularism of the US Constitution.

[snip]

Mr. Eidsmoe's repeated confusion of social contract theory and Bible covenant is his biggest problem. He naively mistakes the preamble of the US Constitution as a commitment to Bible covenantalism, instead of the godless social contract which it is. This confusion is typical of Christian Constitutionalists, who frequently equate the Constitution and the Word of God.

No Miscellaneous Order from the court yet today?

I think the order list will be out Monday. It is possible that no cases were moved on today. They cleared a large holiday backlog last week.

I am shocked. SHOCKED!!! I tells ya.

Ok.. here what is probably a really stupid question.

Doesn't a lawsuit have to have the correct, legal name on it? If not, then anyone can file a lawsuit against "Erma Schlipschitz", meaning myself, and I would never know... Or is it taken care of by that ubiquitous "a.k.a" that they like to add to everything.

Not sure what you're asking Jez. If you can't identify a single defendant, you can't serve a single defendant and you can't get into court.

Hollister did use the President's real name in the "AKA" and, if IIRC, served the President with papers in his real name. That is sufficient to put a defendant on notice that he is the one being sued.