Maybe they can work it out so that Dummett--not just Irion--has to write a check to the DNC also. After all, as he has said many times, he is the architect of the strategy of suing the DNC. He's even named it after himself: Dummett's Dictum.

A letter from Founder VAN IRION

“It is time to focus not on justices but on the body of precedent they work from.” Amity Shlaes, 2010

Liberty Legal Foundation is dedicated to restoring Constitutional limits on government by overturning flawed legal precedent. We work towards this goal by filing lawsuits that challenge key legal precedent that is unconstitutional. The first battle we took on challenges the current legal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, as it was this interpretation that led Congress to believe they had the authority to pass Obamacare. The Obamacare Class Action not only seeks to overturn this completely onerous “health reform” bill but to also re-establish some significance of the 10th Amendment relative to the Commerce Clause. More than 28,000 Americans from all 50 states are named as individual plaintiffs in our nationwide Obamacare Class Action lawsuit (OCA) with more joining everyday.

Liberty Legal Foundation’s second battle, the Immigration Class Action (ICA), challenges the Federal government’s failure to secure our borders. The Obama administration’s recent lawsuit against Arizona raises the opportunity to challenge erroneous Supreme Court precedent on several issues including state sovereignty, standing doctrine, and pre-emption doctrine. As part of its lawsuit against Arizona, the Obama administration argued that Arizona’s law is pre-empted by Federal law. Liberty Legal Foundation will be pointing out that pre-emption begins with the presumption that Federal law is being enforced. The mere existence of Federal law, coupled with the Federal government’s explicit refusal to enforce its own law, should not prevent States from enforcing Federal law. Unfortunately, the District Court in Arizona has enjoined Arizona from enforcing Federal law. Liberty Legal Foundation will be engaging this battle with the aim to correct the District Court’s error and to force the Federal government to enforce Federal immigration law.

This war will take time and it will require your support. If you agree that our Constitution is being ignored by the Federal government and want to take an active role in reversing flawed legal precedent, please support Liberty Legal Foundation either directly or by joining the OCA and the ICA.

Dummett can stuff his Dictum up his ....

The dispositive issue in this case is who the arbiter of presidential qualifications is. The answer is irrefutable: not Plaintiffs.

Grounds for this motion are that Plaintiffs have become aware of relevant precedent that was not previously disclosed to the Court; that the Defendants’ consolidated reply raised arguments not previously raised by the Defendants or the Plaintiffs; and that Defendants’ consolidated reply misrepresents relevant authority.

The Hollander Court relied upon WKA to
establish that all people born in the United States are citizens. It then cited dicta
from Schneider v. Rusk for its conclusion that such a citizen is “thus eligible for the
presidency.” Id., citing 377 U.S. 163, 165, (1964). It explicitly identified the
Schneider citation as dicta. Id.

All of the referenced courts failed to recognize that the term “citizen”
includes all types of citizens, and the term “natural born citizen” is a specific and
legally distinct term which is different from the very broad term “citizen.” “Natural
born citizen” is a subset of the much-broader category “citizen.” These courts
essentially took dicta loosely discussing a broad category, and incorrectly assumed
that the discussion applies to all members of the category. Concluding that every
person born in the United States is an Article II-natural born citizen simply because
the WKA Court concluded that people born in the United States are citizens is
analogous to concluding that all buildings must be green because green buildings
are buildings. A member of the group does not define the group.

The non-binding precedent disclosed here does nothing to change the fact
that the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor v. Happersett, defining the Article II
term “natural born citizen,”was part of that Court’s holding and is therefore
binding precedent. See 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874).

...Concluding that every
person born in the United States is an Article II-natural born citizen simply because
the WKA Court concluded that people born in the United States are citizens is
analogous to concluding that all buildings must be green because green buildings
are buildings. A member of the group does not define the group.

Docket Update...

2012-05-18 - LLF (DUMMETT) - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS



Competitive Standing... and other stuff.

You aren't competing when you don't know how to win the game work the turnstile to get into the stadium.

Regarding competitive standing:





IANAL question: In the middle of a legal action, can one side simply change the facts on the ground and still be able to proceed in the original action, as opposed to having to re-file?

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



05/18/2012 24 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response in Opposition; Proposed Order Submitted by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Supplemental Response in Opposition, # 2 Exhibit Dummett Write-In Certificate, # 3 Exhibit TNDP Bylaws, # 4 Appendix Tisdale v. Obama)(Irion, Van) (Entered: 05/18/2012)

05/25/2012 25 MOTION for Sanctions Consolidated With Memorandum in Support by Chip Forrester, Tennessee Democratic Party. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Additional Cases)(Stranch, J.) (Entered: 05/25/2012)

05/25/2012 26 NOTICE by Chip Forrester, Tennessee Democratic Party re 25 MOTION for Sanctions Consolidated With Memorandum in Support of Filing of Declaration (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Declaration of Benjamin A. Gastel)(Stranch, J.) (Entered: 05/25/2012)

As Plaintiffs should have determined from a reasonable investigation, the NDC USA is not a party in interest to this lawsuit because this entity has never been associated with the Democratic Party of the TNDP. The NDC USA is apparently a mere sham organization, possibly organized by the Shelby County Republican Party, in order to use, without authorization and in bad faith, the name “National Democratic Party,” possibly for nefarious purposes like this lawsuit. As Plaintiffs should have learned through an investigation of the available public records held and posted on the Tennessee Secretary of State’s website, other active names for the NDC USA include the “Shelby County Republican Party, Inc.” See Gastel Decl. at Ex. C. A reasonable person would have taken this to mean that the NDC USA had no relationship with the TNDP or the National Democratic Party. Moreover, the Tennessee Secretary of State’s website shows that the NDC USA’s principal place of business is in Memphis (Gastel Decl., Ex. C) and Plaintiffs are obviously aware that the TNDP is based in Nashville (Declaration of Chip Forrester As Plaintiffs should have determined from a reasonable investigation, the NDC USA is not a party in interest to this lawsuit because this entity has never been associated with the Democratic Party of the TNDP. The NDC USA is apparently a mere sham organization, possibly organized by the Shelby County Republican Party, in order to use, without authorization and in bad faith, the name “National Democratic Party,” possibly for nefarious purposes like this lawsuit. As Plaintiffs should have learned through an investigation of the available public records held and posted on the Tennessee Secretary of State’s website, other active names for the NDC USA include the “Shelby County Republican Party, Inc.” See Gastel Decl. at Ex. C. A reasonable person would have taken this to mean that the NDC USA had no relationship with the TNDP or the National Democratic Party. Moreover, the Tennessee Secretary of State’s website shows that the NDC USA’s principal place of business is in Memphis (Gastel Decl., Ex. C) and Plaintiffs are obviously aware that the TNDP is based in Nashville (Declaration of Chip Forrester ¶ 3).
8.

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

05/25/2012 25 MOTION for Sanctions Consolidated With Memorandum in Support by Chip Forrester, Tennessee Democratic Party. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Additional Cases)(Stranch, J.) (Entered: 05/25/2012)

05/25/2012 26 NOTICE by Chip Forrester, Tennessee Democratic Party re 25 MOTION for Sanctions Consolidated With Memorandum in Support of Filing of Declaration (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Declaration of Benjamin A. Gastel)(Stranch, J.) (Entered: 05/25/2012)

06/01/2012 27 ORDER granting 22 Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Reply. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 5/1/12. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 06/01/2012)

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: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 360 Personal Injury: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question


06/07/2012 38 NOTICE re Supplemental Authority by Liberty Legal Foundation . (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Irion, Van) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

I hope they sanction his ass on the 24th Day of Sivan, or any other day.

I don't know what Sivan means, and I don't care, but it reads very Satanic to me!

Nothing sez nutter better than Sivan on an American Court case.

‘The Jews are not the whole of God’s people Israel, as so many imagine, but only a small part of the chosen race – at the most two tribes out of twelve… and British-Israelites maintain that the Anglo-Saxon race embody, and are, the ten-tribed kingdom of Israel’ (Dixon, 1915: 16, emphasis in original).