RIGHT IN THE BEGINNING

Here we go again.

Like Orly and Phil Berg before him, on January 30, Leo Donofrio announced his epiphany that military Plaintiffs have standing in federal court to determine whether BO is a NBC. (“Ineligible POTUS best challenged by active military in Federal court.”) Only 2 ½ months after I first sent him the idea, in the 6-page memo I originally posted on this blog on November 14. Not surprisingly, he does not mention where he got the idea; he never even uses my name.

I posted a comment on his blog pointing out, ‘his’ idea sounded surprisingly like mine. Following is his response.

jbjd Says:
January 30, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Leo, I wrote that military Complaint obliquely referenced in the heading of your article, weeks ago. And it does not require any military personnel to disobey an order, before acquiring the standing to bring this suit. I even added in an additional fact among the FACTS section that de-bunks FactCheck, courtesy of BO’s latest non-response response in Hollister.
https://jbjd.wordpress.com/

[Ed. Readers should take a look at his blog. But keep in mind, the concept requires a class action with MANY soldiers signing on. There’s power in numbers. And there’s standing.]

Now, Leo can use all the capital letters he wants but, he is just plain wrong that the “concept requires a class action with MANY soldiers signing on.” And he’s wrong to imply “numbers” confer “standing.” Obviously, he is opining without having done the research. Of course, I did the research before drafting the military Complaint. So, I wrote another comment on his blog, which was followed by another note from him.

jbjd Says:
January 31, 2009 at 10:44 am
Leo, the beauty of the Declaratory Judgment Act is that, Plaintiffs can act qua class without class certification or multiple Plaintiffs. This is part of the beauty of relying on this particular federal law. In other words, any decision that applies to the Plaintiff named, applies to all similarly situated potential Plaintiffs.
https://jbjd.wordpress.com/

[Ed. That’s certainly interesting.]

A great source for research is the Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys. Here is the opening paragraph from the section on Declaratory Judgment.

The Declaratory Judgment Act offers a unique mechanism by which advocates may seek to remedy ongoing violations of statutory or constitutional law./115/ The Act may authorize broad, classwide declaratory and injunctive relief without resort to class action procedures./116/ Distinctive features of the Act:
• allow prospective defendants to sue to establish their nonliability/117/ and
• afford a party threatened with liability an opportunity for adjudication before its adversary commences litigation./118/
However, the statute on its face makes no express reference to, and creates no special preference for, the resolution of such “anticipatory” disputes. A party need not be a prospective defendant in order to bring an action under the Act./119/ Clearly, however, the unique declaratory form of relief created by the statute was intended to resolve pending or threatened controversies before the need for more coercive intervention was required.

http://ejustice.org/federal_practice_manual_2006/chapter_9/chap9sec3.htm

Finally, let me emphasize that based on the legal theories and causes of action underlying the military Complaint I envisioned and drafted, establishing standing does not require insubordination. Thus, I never even hinted that any soldier seeking to become a Plaintiff in this military Complaint should disobey any orders. However, the Release Orly printed on her web site, and which several military have already signed, does this; and as you can read below, when I saw her Release, I pointed out this conflict between the language in that Release and, my Complaint, and asked her to amend her Release. As of this writing, she has not.

(Military, please read the TEMPLATE FOR THE MILITARY COMPLAINT AGAINST BARACK OBAMA and get back to me with your thoughts.)

Advertisements

3 Responses to RIGHT IN THE BEGINNING

  1. Northshorelover says:

    Thank you for your hard work. I knew you are a very smart lawyer. IMHO, Mr. Donafrio has a temper problem and who lacks qualities a lawyer must possess. However I think he is a very good artist, musician, and a o.k. gambler. Many bloggers who visited Mr. Donafrio’s site know whose idea it was, since that’s where we learned about jbjd and I first came to your site in November, 08. If people are average or above, then they all know this military complain idea came from you. Move on. You are the GUY. We all know.
    Again thank you.

  2. Kathy says:

    A few things for your review.

    A large group of military personal filing the suit would not be necessary for standing, but better for the safety of those individuals. If Leo’s paranoia based on his own experience is justified, a few military personal quietly suing in court for the birth certificate could be in danger of an “unfortunate accident”. Only numbers and media exposure will provide safety.

    We all must remember that it doesn’t matter who comes up with the ideas as long as someone puts them out there and someone acts on them.

    You refer to the possibility that Obama Sr. is not Mr. O’s father. This brings up a classic question: is the biological connection between parents and a child more important than an adoptive or claimed connection? Would a child born in China and adopted at birth by US citizens be considered natural born? Are there any laws that address that?

    Obama’s act of hiding basic information will not be forgotten even if a truce is called. Somehow the information will come out eventually.

    Thanks and good luck to you.

    Kathy: You are welcome; and good luck to all of us. As I responded to comments on the other posts, being first with the idea was not the issue. Rather, I am concerned that, people might conflate my work with work produced by others. This is a problem for me, because I can only vouch for the caliber of my work. As for who is considered NBC… In order to draft my military Complaint, I had to assume that when BO said BO, Sr., was his father, he was telling the truth. This means, he is not a NBC. But, if in order to grant Declaratory Relief, the Court ordered the production of documents that revealed, someone else was his father then, I had to consider whether an alternative scenario would still mean, he is not a NBC. So, I captured all 3 scenarios that could impact on his status. As to how adoption impacts on an analysis as to whether someone is a NBC, I would imagine, the only historical period that counts is, the precise time of birth. Finally, I want to emphasize that, the ‘safety’ of any military personnel filing suit using this military Complaint is not at issue. No soldier is violating any orders; no one is jeopardizing morale; no one is advocating any conduct. Plaintiff(s) is merely asking the Court for a Declaration of BO’s status. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. jtx says:

    I believe your approach is superb and very likely to advance (or even flourish in court). I frankly cannot understand why no other attorney has picked up “the ball” and run with it.

    As an ex-military (very long ago) I’m puzzled by the lack of action. I’ve forwarded the link to a couple of attorneys in the hope it may trigger some interest in them. It certainly deserves to go forward with all good speed.

    Nice work!!

    jtx: Thank you. When I first came up with the idea that military Plaintiffs would overcome the problem of standing in federal court, I thought it was pretty good; when I actually drafted the Complaint some weeks later, I thought this was brilliant. I can offer educated guesses as to why none of the other attorneys filing cases that were procedurally infirm, has filed my military Complaint. However, having heard from other members of the military, I can tell you that, one of the reasons some of them have not ‘run’ with the military Complaint I drafted is this. The Release Orly Taitz had them sign could be construed as an admission they intend to disobey orders and expect to be tried for Treason. Having actually read my Complaint, you fully understand, this implicates no such conduct. But unless those military personnel gravitating to Orly’s site, somehow reach mine – she refuses to list my blog on her site, notwithstanding I gave her the idea of the military Complaint and then wrote this Complaint based on her promise to file it – they might understandably assume that, the self-incriminating Release on her site reflects the liability they face by filing this Complaint. What a shame. In fact, when Berg brought the Hollister case, using a military Plaintiff but a different cause of action, BO signaled how successful my case would be. That is, his best evidence that he is a NBC is FactCheck. (Recall, in a footnote, he asked the Court to take judicial notice that FactCheck said he’s okay.) My Complaint completely debunks FactCheck as an agent for BO. So, if BO’s lawyers can get the federal court to take notice of anything they say then, BO might be able to use that in the next federal case, making it harder for that next case to prevail. Hopefully, Berg is smart enough not to let them get away with this. Thanks for anything you can do to clarify the nature of my Complaint, and to convince someone to file it. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: