On 10/25/11 Liberty Legal Foundation filed two simultaneous lawsuits against the Democratic Party. Both lawsuits request injunctions prohibiting the Party from certifying that Obama is Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President in the 2012 election. Without such a certification from the Party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election.

Neither lawsuit discuss Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to our argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant.

[snip]

We also learned that Presidential candidates that are registered with the Federal Election Commission have standing to ask a court to keep another candidate off the ballot. That’s why two of our lead plaintiffs are FEC-registered Presidential Candidates.

Because we have lead plaintiffs that are FEC-registered Presidential Candidates, and because those plaintiffs are also Liberty Legal members, Liberty Legal has standing to sue as well.

Because we have lead plaintiffs that are FEC-registered Presidential Candidates, you can join our lawsuit as a class member and be part of this challenge. If one plaintiff has standing to sue, all plaintiffs have standing to sue. We have a class for all people that object to having a Presidential candidate appear on the ballot who is not Constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President. If you agree that the Constitution should be followed, please add your voice to ours. Please join our class action lawsuit to protect the legitimacy of the ballot.

Late last month Liberty Legal Foundation filed a motion in the Obamacare Class Action lawsuit asking the Texas Federal Court to ignore the 1942 Supreme Court precedent Wickard v. Filburn. Asking a District Court to ignore Supreme Court precedent is highly unusual but we believe it’s justified in this case. Because Wickard was a politically-motivated decision that reversed 150 years of prior precedent, we feel justified in asking the Court to ignore Wickard and honor the clear language of the Constitution.

We expect the District Court to be reluctant to grant our motion, so we gave it an alternative. Our motion reminds the District Court that if it agrees that Wickard should be reconsidered, but it doesn’t believe that it has the authority to overturn Wickard itself, the District Court can still tell the higher courts what it thinks about Wickard. If the District Court follows our suggestion we would be allowed to immediately bring the case to the next higher court, and we would have a statement from the District Court questioning the validity of Wickard. Such a statement would make the higher courts much more likely to rule in our favor. Our filing and the update we sent to you after filing our motion can both be seen on Liberty Legal’s web site.

...

The defendant’s response to our latest motion had no surprises for us. We got exactly what we expected. Their opposition focused primarily on the same arguments they had made in their previous motion to dismiss. They claimed that none of Liberty Legal’s over 30,000 members have standing to challenge Obamacare. This argument had already been addressed and negated by our previous response to their motion, filed last July.

...

The best part of the defendants’ response to our motion was this: they still argue that “Under plaintiffs’ extreme view, even Medicare would be unconstitutional. There is no such categorical shackle on the power of Congress.” Wow! The defendants have proven once again that they haven’t bothered to read the Constitution. Article I section 8 is exactly a categorical shackle on the power of Congress. That is its express purpose. For 150 years the Supreme Court agreed that the “commerce clause” was NOT intended to remove all shackles on Congressional power. Such an interpretation of the commerce clause is absurd in light of Article I section 8. Essentially the defendants argue that the Founding Fathers wanted to limit the power of Congress, and then in the same sentence remove all such limitations. This is simply ludicrous. Yet this is how the Wickard Court interpreted the Constitution. Once again the defendants have made our point for us: they actively argue that Wickard’s interpretation of the commerce clause leaves “no such categorical shackle on the power of Congress.”

Amazing isn’t it?

A Rule 23(b)(2) class action, seeking class wide relief, does not require the same showing as a (b)(1) class where each class member must prove his/her right to the stake. So, certification won't be delayed on that basis. However, each class member must have standing. That's going to be a big hurdle -- for all plaintiffs.

Since the Democratic Party is a defendant, these cases will be disposed of very quickly. They aren't "ripe" and plaintiffs have no standing. Of course, on the legal issue, if they ever got there, they're wrong.

A Rule 23(b)(2) class action, seeking class wide relief, does not require the same showing as a (b)(1) class where each class member must prove his/her right to the stake. So, certification won't be delayed on that basis. However, each class member must have standing. That's going to be a big hurdle -- for all plaintiffs.

Since the Democratic Party is a defendant, these cases will be disposed of very quickly. They aren't "ripe" and plaintiffs have no standing. Of course, on the legal issue, if they ever got there, they're wrong.

Their previous post is a doozy as well


Late last month Liberty Legal Foundation filed a motion in the Obamacare Class Action lawsuit asking the Texas Federal Court to ignore the 1942 Supreme Court precedent Wickard v. Filburn. Asking a District Court to ignore Supreme Court precedent is highly unusual but we believe it’s justified in this case. Because Wickard was a politically-motivated decision that reversed 150 years of prior precedent, we feel justified in asking the Court to ignore Wickard and honor the clear language of the Constitution.

7/7/11 – Liberty Legal Foundation files PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO FILE NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY and PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

09/28/2011 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment or Alternatively a Statement Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) filed by Liberty Legal Foundation (Irion, Van) (Entered: 09/28/2011)

09/28/2011 21 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Liberty Legal Foundation re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment or Alternatively a Statement Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) (Irion, Van) (Entered: 09/28/2011)

09/28/2011 22 Appendix in Support filed by Liberty Legal Foundation re 21 Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Irion, Van) (Entered: 09/28/2011)

10/04/2011 23 PRETRIAL NOTICE AND ORDER: Jury Trial set for 8/13/2012 at 09:00 AM in US Courthouse, Courtroom C-216, 1205 Texas Avenue, Lubbock, TX 79401-4091 before Judge Sam R Cummings. (Ordered by Judge Sam R Cummings on 10/4/2011) (cb) (Entered: 10/04/2011)

10/19/2011 24 OBJECTION filed by Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America re: 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment or Alternatively a Statement Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Kennedy, Brian) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/19/2011 25 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America re 24 Response/Objection, (Kennedy, Brian) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/19/2011 26 Appendix in Support filed by Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America re 24 Response/Objection, (Kennedy, Brian) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

Practice Areas

We have provided skilled and aggressive legal representation for more than fourteen years to clients in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico for a variety of personal injury, civil cases, and other areas of law. Among the types of cases we handle are:

Wrongful Death: If you have lost a loved one due to the mistakes or negligence of another.
Auto and Truck Wrecks: Car crashes and trucking accidents can result in very serious injuries.
Insurance Claims: Underinsured motorist, uninsured motorist, life insurance, and other first-party insurance claims.
Medical Bill Reduction: Unpaid medical bills can be a burden on any family. We may be able to help obtain reduction/discounts on medical bills under some circumstances.
Other Practice Areas: Train wrecks, drunk driving wrecks, cotton gin injuries, dangerous and defective products, deceptive trade practices, civil rights issues, sexual assault and more.

02/14/2011 5 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING to 3 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice with Cert. of Good Standing for Attorney Van R. Irion (Filing fee $25; Receipt number LU004399)Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice with Cert. of Good Standing for Attorney Van R. Irion (Filing fee $25; Receipt number LU004399). (jdg) (Entered: 02/14/2011)

02/15/2011 6 ORDER denying 3 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Van R. Irion. Mr. Irion shall have fourteen (14) days to re-file his Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice with the proper certification; otherwise, the pleadings filed on behalf of Plaintiffs will be unfiled. (Ordered by Judge Sam R Cummings on 2/15/2011) (jdg) Modified on 2/15/2011 (jdg). (Entered: 02/15/2011)

02/16/2011 7 ORDER: Construing Mr. Irion's response on the Application as a motion for leave to proceed without local counsel, the Court DENIES the same. (Ordered by Judge Sam R Cummings on 2/16/2011) (jdg) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/28/2011 8 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Robert S Hogan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Hogan, Robert) (Entered: 02/28/2011)

02/28/2011 9 AMENDED Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice with Cert. of Good Standing for Attorney Van R. Irion (Filing fee $25; Receipt number LU004399) (jdg) (Entered: 02/28/2011)

03/09/2011 10 ORDER granting 9 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Van R. Irion. Clerk shall deposit application fee to the Non-Appropriated Fund of this Court. If not already done, Applicant must register as an ECF User within 14 days (LR 5.1(f)). (Ordered by Judge Sam R Cummings on 3/9/2011) (jdg) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

05/31/2011 11 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (Jurisdiction), # 2 Proposed Order (Venue), # 3 Proposed Order (Failure to State a Claim)) (Kennedy, Brian) (Entered: 05/31/2011)

Party Name Court Case NOS Date Filed Date Closed

1 Democratic National Party (dft) casdce 3:2004-cv-01825 440 09/13/2004 09/15/2004
Ball v. Democratic National

2 Democratic National Party (dft) hidce 1:2008-cv-00232 440 05/19/2008 07/24/2008
Roy v. Association formed in 2007 as conglomerate of indepent 1000+ unincorporated small and poorly financed disadvantaged peoples et al

3 Democratic National Party (dft) ilcdce 4:2009-cv-04031 441 05/06/2009 06/22/2009
Roy v. Obama et al

4 Democratic National Party (dft) vaedce 2:2009-cv-00490 440 10/02/2009 10/28/2009

Prior suits agains the DNC have not fared well nor lasted very long...

Association Formed in 2007 as Conglomerate of Independent 1000+ Unincorporated Small and Poorly Financed Disadvantaged People, USA Government Washington D.C., John McCain, Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Judges of the District Court, USA Constitution, UN Plaza, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, Democratic Super Delegates, Republican National Party, Democratic National Party, All Religions in Washington D.C., All Giant News Conglomerates, All News Media of USA, We the People of USA to whom it may concern, All 50 United States, All State Board of Elections in USA, All Territories of USA and U.S. Judiciary of U.S. Supreme Court

A full listing of the defendants in Case #2 is instructive:

Association Formed in 2007 as Conglomerate of Independent 1000+ Unincorporated Small and Poorly Financed Disadvantaged People, USA Government Washington D.C., John McCain, Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Judges of the District Court, USA Constitution, UN Plaza, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, Democratic Super Delegates, Republican National Party, Democratic National Party, All Religions in Washington D.C., All Giant News Conglomerates, All News Media of USA, We the People of USA to whom it may concern, All 50 United States, All State Board of Elections in USA, All Territories of USA and U.S. Judiciary of U.S. Supreme Court



I wonder how he went about serving "All Religions in Washington D.C." or "All News Media of USA".

Since the Democratic Party is a defendant, these cases will be disposed of very quickly. They aren't "ripe" and plaintiffs have no standing.

Mr. Hogan is a Personal Injury (PI) attorney in Lubbock. Another obvious Konstitushonal Emergency expert.
http://www.lubbockinjurylaw.com/

Probably nothing but I'm just getting a blank screen when I go to Liberty Legal Foundation's website this morning.

Brid1957
Just another WordPress site

I tried after just reading your post and I get redirected...

Orly writes about this (and she gets it right imo):

xxxhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=26948

What about John Dummett, why he does not have standing or case against Obama

Posted on | October 26, 2011 | 1 Comment

A number of people have asked me about this gentleman, John Dummett, what do I think about him and his attempt to find standing in court.

I am sure Mr. Dummett is a good person, I wish him all the best, but he does not have standing. I was contacted by Mr. Dummett and a couple of his friends probably a couple of months ago. His two friends wanted to travel from FL, where they reside, to CA, in order to persuade me to file a class action law suit with Mr. Dummett as a lead plaintiff, they wanted me to take this case and represent Mr. Dummett.

I explained to them, that first and foremost, during the primary neither he, nor even legitimate candidates on the ballot, do not have standing to challenge Obama. Even, if Romney, Cain and Perry wanted to sue Obama today and seek adjudication of the BC issue, they cannot do it during the primary, as they do not face Obama during the Primary, they face each other, so the judge will say, that the law suit is just hypothetical, conjectural, not ripe. Republican nominee can sue Obama later during the general election, but not during the Primary.

2. From what I understand, Mr. Dummett simply filled out a one page form, saying that he has an intention to run for President. Most people do not know, that there are some 250-260 people, who simply filled out this one page form and are considered candidates for President, however, it is really nothing. In order to even run in the Primary, one has to be on the ballot. In order to be on the ballot, one has to pay necessary fees. For example, in order to run for Senate and have my name on the ballot in one state, in CA, I need to pay $3420 to the state of CA. In order to run for President, one has to pay a fee in each and every state. As far as I know, John Dummett did not pay fees yet and he is not on the ballot yet.

Now, if I know of 250 people, who simply filled out 1 page form, so do the judges, and they look at the case accordingly, they understand, that these people are not even on the ballot. Again, even if he were to pay the fees in each and every state and get on the ballot, he cannot face Obama in the primary.

U.S. District Court
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11-cv-02089-SRB

Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA Incorporated et al
Assigned to: Judge Susan R Bolton
Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment
Date Filed: 10/25/2011
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Liberty Legal Foundation represented by Van Irion
Liberty Legal Foundation
9040 Executive Park Dr., Ste. 223
Knoxville, TN 37923
865-809-1505
Fax: 865-531-9149
Email: van@libertylegalfoundation.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
John Dummett represented by Van Irion
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Leonard Volodarsky represented by Van Irion
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Creg Maroney represented by Van Irion
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Defendant
National Democratic Party of the USA Incorporated

Defendant
Debbie Wasserman Schultz

10/25/2011 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $350.00, receipt number PHX 0970-5978115, filed by Liberty Legal Foundation, John Dummett, Creg Maroney, Leonard Volodarsky (submitted by Van Irion). (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(REK) (Entered: 10/26/2011)

10/25/2011 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Liberty Legal Foundation (submitted by Van Irion). (Attachments: # 1 Page 2)(REK) (Entered: 10/26/2011)

10/25/2011 3 SUMMONS Submitted by John Dummett, Liberty Legal Foundation, Creg Maroney, Leonard Volodarsky (submitted by Van Irion). (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(REK) (Entered: 10/26/2011)

10/25/2011 4 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Van Irion by John Dummett, Liberty Legal Foundation, Creg Maroney, Leonard Volodarsky (submitted by Van Irion). (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(REK) (Entered: 10/26/2011)

10/25/2011 5 Filing fee paid, receipt number PHX 0970-5978115. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Susan R. Bolton. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV 11-02089-PHX-SRB. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (REK) (Entered: 10/26/2011)

10/26/2011 6 Summons Issued as to National Democratic Party of the USA Incorporated, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(REK). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 10/26/2011)

10/26/2011 PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX115100 as to Van Irion. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 10/26/2011)

10/26/2011 7 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 4 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/26/2011)