Broe v. Reed: Case Dismissed “Without Comment”; Going to SCOTUS!
From the TriCityHerald.com, the Washington State case of Broe v. Reed has been dismissed:
The Washington Supreme Court today dismissed a lawsuit alleging Secretary of State Sam Reed had failed to confirm that President-elect Barack Obama was eligible to run for president.
A group of Washington residents filed the lawsuit in early December asking the state’s votes for Obama be set aside.
James E. Broe of King County and 12 others claimed Obama never established that he is a natural-born American citizen as required by the Constitution, and that Obama ran under a false name. …
The Broe lawsuit claimed that Reed had known about questions concerning Obama’s eligibility since September, but did nothing to determine whether Obama was a lawful candidate. …
The Supreme Court granted Reed’s request to dismiss the suit without comment.
I’ll be watching for further comment from attorney Stephen Pidgeon.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
Update: According to DecaLogoIntl.org, the following was excerpted from a posting entitled, “Washington Supreme Court clears hurdle to allow Broe v Reed to push for SCOTUS review:”
The Washington Supreme Court, without comment, has dismissed the claims of the 12 Broe v Reed plaintiffs, who sought to require the Secretary of State to do his constitutionally imposed duty and disallow the votes for Senator Obama on the basis that Senator Obama has failed to establish that he is a natural born citizen; that he is an American citizen, or that he was running under his legal name.
As Jim Broe put it to the Secretary: “If not you, who?”
STEPHEN PIDGEON
Attorney at Law, P.S.
Apparently this case is similarly headed to the Supreme Court.
Update: Here’s the dismissal information.
-Phil
[...] [...]
[...] Electoral College. (See Hollister v Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Keyes v Obama, Broe v Reed, et. al.) It seems very clear that either of these types of plaintiffs would be able to overcome [...]
[...] Berg v Obama – Lightfoot v Bowen – Broe v Reed – Keyes v Obama [...]
Glenda,
SCOTUS has simply denied Certiorari on the cases it’s seen, thus far, because 4 out of 9 Justices thought that the lower courts ruled correctly in terms of Plaintiff non-standing to make a case. A lot of that has to do with the fact that typically only officials such as Secretaries of State have standing to bring such suits (that’s at least my opinion of the situation).
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
I would like for someone to explain to me, why the SCOTUS can decline or dismiss the most important issue, The Constitution, with simply, declined, dismissed, and no explaination to the American public. Secondly, I have read where the SCOTUS can be impeached, if correct, why is the American public hesitating to do so, since I do not see The Constitution being upheld. Is that not there job ?
Thanx,
Glenda
Mr. Appel,
I think the point of the post’s title is (based on the history of numerous State-based cases) that Mr. Pidgeon has every intention of going to the Supreme Court with his case; clearly, the only hurdle in doing so is that all applicable lower levels of the Judiciary must first be exhausted before any writs or applications would be considered by the Justices.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
What a misleading title: “Washington Supreme Court clears hurdle to allow Broe v Reed to push for SCOTUS review:” This makes it sound as if the Washington Supreme Court granted or approved the filing with the US Supreme Court, when in fact the Washington Supreme Court denied the petition entirely, thereby meaning that the US Supreme Court is the only possible court that may now act. If the Washington Supreme Court had viewed the petition favorably, they could have voted to hear argument on. They didn’t even do that.
Seriously misleading, the author should be ashamed.
DCL I am dreaming…cannot wait for the evidence to arrive.
God Help This Nation…
Nonsense about wanting to get denied by a lower court. This has zero chance getting heard in SCOTUS. The SCOTUS has already rejected three similar cases in the 30 days.
The most recent was last Friday with the Berg case. The next one comes up on 1/21, but that has already rejected by one justice, just like the prior one were before geeting tossed in the pile of hundreds of cases that will be rejected without comment in the next Friday conference.
Dream on.
Personally, I can’t wait until we start trying these traitors in Congress and the Unsupreme Court for treason, and televise the hangings on the Capitol steps. It’s about time we start making it expensive for throwing the Constitution under the bus.
One more thing — do you all know that many judges HAVE NOT SIGNED THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE? The infiltration of communist/socialist forces into our government has been thorough and been going on for decades. Many judges have refused to sign their Oaths of Office to defend the Constitution. They know that if they do not sign their oath, they can’t be prosecuted for NOT upholding the U.S. Consitution. In the early 90’s there were demonstrations in Dallas, Texas for about 2+ years on the steps of the state courthouse against many of these judges. Nobody really cared though (it was covered on local TV and radio), and the judges still never signed their oaths. If I were in the states where these court cases are held, I would be checking to see if these judges had signed their oaths of office.
Rich,
I believe that your observation will turn out to be correct.
My understanding is that this case was heard as a private case (meaning the proceedings of the case weren’t made public), so one could also speculate that Mr. Pidgeon was able to garner more information to which we’re not privy on what the Defense was using against the case. We’ll see.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
I’m not a lawyer, but I believe Pidgeon wanted the case dismissed “without comment” so there will no prejudice when the case arrives at the Supreme Court. Supremes do not want to overturn lower court rulings, so by sending it along to the Supremes, there is no decision to overturn, it is sent to the court without prejudice. Had the Washington State court ruled on the case, then sent to the Supreme Court, then Pidgeon would bear the entire burden of the case to get it overturned.
Okay, the court finds that the SOS was at wrong, then why grant SOS the right to dismiss the case? Would someone please explain this?
What’s next for this case?
JUSTICE ALITO needs a case. Join the Constitution Party. Encrypt=Lan Lamphere. My wife passed away JAN3, in ICU during 08 election and during 9-11. Something terrible is coming. 6 months after Lincoln’s election, Americans were slaughtering each other.
Take a look at JOHN TITOR.com
I feel Like Roddy piper in “they live”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phlqKx_8Xe0
Our courts are no longer interested in truth, they turn their blind eye when it suits them. See NOevil, Hear NOevil. NObama can do NOwrong. Our courts are stupid.
Keith
P. Barnett,
Many thanks. However, it is nevertheless a group effort.
-Phil
I just plugged you on Plains Radio for breaking this story.