JUST BECAUSE NO ONE HAS FILED THE MILITARY COMPLAINT THAT I CONCEIVED AND PERFECTED AND PUT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN WEEKS AGO DOES NOT MEAN PLAINTIFFS FILING THIS COMPLAINT WOULD NOT PREVAIL IN FEDERAL COURT!
I conceived the idea of establishing standing in federal court through the use of a military Plaintiff, back in November. That’s when I wrote the lengthy memo entitled, FIND OUT WHETHER BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STOP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FROM VOTING FOR HIM, IF HE IS NOT! My goal in this memo was to explain to lay people that these legal cases already filed regarding BO’s eligibility hadn’t gone anywhere because they were procedurally infirm and not because the issue of his Constitutional eligibility was substantively baseless. And I wanted to propose a means to circumvent one of these procedural infirmities: using military Plaintiffs to establish standing in federal court. (I explained in the memo that, BO had provided a primer of sorts as to how to overcome any problems with standing; in the Opposition he submitted to the Court in the Berg case!)
I posted my memo on this blog (original posting date was November 14). Members of Team jbjd also distributed my memo throughout the blogosphere; as well as to members of the MSM, and attorneys and groups already engaged in trying to ‘out’ the fact BO is not a NBC, including Leo Donofrio; Orly Taitz; Phil Berg; and Edwin Vieira. (I called Orly Taitz and Phil Berg personally.) I had hoped someone would pick up on my idea that the military Plaintiff would satisfy any objections to standing; and run with it. But no one did. A couple of weeks later, I followed up with several attorneys, including Orly Taitz. Now, she informed me, using military Plaintiffs was an “old” idea. I reminded her; I was the person who brought this idea to her, weeks ago! She also claimed, she had several military Plaintiffs who had already signed Releases allowing her to file a Complaint on their behalf. But she hadn’t drafted a Complaint; she asked me to do this.
So, I drafted the military Complaint. The legal theory is mine; the SUMMARY OF THE CASE is mine; and the FACTS are all mine. Indeed, Orly had proposed I should just copy the FACTS section from one of her cases; but I said no. None of the other cases I read contained actual ‘facts.’ Rather, they contained rumors, theories, and hyperbole disguised as facts. Besides, my “FACTS” had to support the theory of my case, which was different from all of the other cases, in these 2 regards. First, I was not claiming BO is not a NBC. Instead, I was only claiming, Plaintiffs have no idea as to his legal status. Second, I was not asking the court to order him to prove whether he is a NBC though the production of documents. Instead, I was only asking the court to Declare his status; how to do this was up to the court.
So, now I just had to fill in the information for the military Plaintiffs she selected. That is, she would send information on a Plaintiff and I had to identify the local federal district court; and amend the Complaint to include his personal information. On January 3, 2009, I notified her of a problem with one of her proposed Plaintiffs, and sent her the following email.
to Orly Taitz
date Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 7:24 PM
subject AGE OF DEFENDANTS
Do you realize * is 77? I cannot say he is subject to recall; he is not a good Plaintiff.
Here is her response to my concern.
date Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 7:57 PM
subject Re: AGE OF DEFENDANTS
Let’s keep him, he is extremely ewll known and putspoken. Let the judge kick him out, he will take the country apart
Orly Taitz DDS Esq
So, she had her Complaint, filled in with the name of 3 Plaintiffs she chose. But she did not file the Complaint. I told her, if she did not file this Complaint then, I would post it on line so that someone else could file this.
On January 12, 2009, I realized there was a problem with the Release Orly had required her potential Plaintiffs to sign, creating a conflict with the Complaint I conceived and drafted; which conflict is spelled out in this email.
Subject: MILITARY COMPLAINT – CONSENT FORM REVISION
To: “Orly Taitz”
Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 6:45 PM
The Consent Form posted on your site needs to be revised if you use the Complaint I drafted. Because the Complaint only states that Plaintiffs have a good faith belief and understanding Defendant is not a NBC, whereas the Consent Form explicitly says, he is not.
The case I fashioned is not intended to require Plaintiffs to prove Defendant’s legal status; rather, it leaves that heavy lifting up to the Court.
Orly did not revise her Release; so the conflict remains. Military Plaintiffs admit in her Release they will disobey orders and will be accused of treason; my Complaint predicts no such conduct. And evidently, this does not sit right with some members of our military, who would otherwise be willing Plaintiffs. One such Plaintiff who had previously signed her Release, subsequently requested my intervention to revoke his Consent to be a Plaintiff. I was able to rescind that Release.
Still, she would not file the Complaint.
Phil Berg filed a version of a military Complaint using Hollister, retired military, as his Plaintiff; and an Interpleader, totally different from what I had in mind. BO filed his Opposition. Orly sent me another email, now coming up with another justification as to why she had not filed a military Complaint.
date Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:12 AM
subject Motion to dismiss Berg’s military claim
I was waiting to see what BO’s lead attorney Robert Bauer will write in response to Berg’s military complaint. As I expected, in his motion to dismiss he notes several hurdles common for all of these cases.
One of them, that the court has no jurisdiction and the plaintiffs have no standing. As discharged members of the military their standing is questionable. He is saying that any injury is highly speculative. Bottom line, the decision by the judge will be merely an advisory opinion, which is impermissible. Even though Dec relief does not require injury in fact, there still has to be a standing and real controversy. He is saying that according to Lujan v Wildlife the damage is not imminent, but rather conjectural or hypothetical. Even in Dec relief the has to be a concrete or actual invasion of a particular right. I suspect the judge will decide for BO. That is why I am still working on proper court, jurisdiction, standing and points and authorities. If I go with guns blazing without proper legal ground, the case will be res judicata and deemed to be heard on the merits. We will loose both the plaintiffs and the whole line of attack. We can’t afford to do that. I might be able to go to SCOTUS on this one on original jurisdiction. One of my active people has met with the top brass at the Pentagon. We are waiting to see their response, will they let an active military to seek dec relief on this issue without exposing him to court martial. It is not just him: there is a family and children. It is a catch 22: retired military will be dismissed quickly, but active faces serious repercussions.
Here is my reply.
date Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:19 AM
subject Re: Motion to dismiss Berg’s military claim
“As I expected, in his motion to dismiss he notes several hurdles common for all of these cases.” Then why did you expand the set of Plaintiffs to include a 77-year-old Plaintiff; or someone retired as opposed to on inactive duty status? If you will note my original memo on the subject, the ideal Plaintiff would be someone about to be or anticipated to be called up to active duty status. National guard would have been great. You expanded the set of Plaintiffs, against my advice.
“One of my active people has met with the top brass at the Pentagon. We are waiting to see their response, will they let an active military to seek dec relief on this issue without exposing him to court martial. It is not just him: there is a family and children. It is a catch 22: retired military will be dismissed quickly, but active faces serious repercussions.” Let me remind you that, the Plaintiff who faces no real jeopardy is not a valid Plaintiff; the case brought by a Plaintiff in no jeopardy fails to present a valid case or controversy to the Court. In other words, by claiming you are attempting to insulate the Plaintiff from liability in advance of filing the military Complaint, you are essentially depriving Plaintiff of the standing required to sue in the first place, and the Court of the jurisdiction to hear the suit.
I will read the response. I have already been asked to comment on my blog.
Today, Orly posted this on her blog. I inserted my comments.
Aside from 4 cases mentioned above, I have about 50 consent forms from the servicemen, however I wasn’t rushing to file, as I wanted to see a response from Obama’s lead attorney Robert Bauer, whom I personally call Der. Gebbels machine, I wanted to see his motion to dismiss Phil Berg’s (Hollister) and Mario Apuzzo’s (Kerchner) cases, I wanted to see the arguments. A definition of insanity, is when you are doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. No sense of filling exactly the same case. (My case has nothing to do with any of these other cases.) I hope that those cases are not dismissed, but what Bauer is saying among other things, is that the plaintiffs are retired military and therefor a chance of them being called to active duty pursuant Obama’s orders is highly hypothetical, and in order to show standing, you need to show an actual controversy. (My case called for military about to be deployed; check out the Memo posted in November. Orly insisted on using a 77-year-old Plaintiff, against my objections; check out her email, posted above. And her Release includes retired military!) A judge cannot give an advisory opinion for hypothetical situations. (My case is not hypothetical; Berg’s claims that a retired military could be recalled makes his case subject to a claim the case is hypothetical.) Due to the above, I am reworking my military case. (You never had a military case!) I feel it is better to take a bit more time and be better prepared, then go with guns blazing and be shot out of the court. (Except when you file subpoenas under an executive order that gives you no rights of enforcement…)