Hunter v. Obama: TX Case Dismissed on Failure of Claim, Jurisdiction
Darrel Reece Hunter of Amarillo, TX, on January 16, 2009 received a response as Plaintiff pro se in Hunter v. Obama where he filed in US District Court against Defendants US Supreme Court, Barack H. Obama, John McCain, Democratic National Committee, Republican National Committee, House, Senate, Electoral College, District of Columbia, the Federal Election Commission, and George H. W. Bush.
This case was dismissed based on the following:
For all the reasons set forth above and pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, section 1915(e)(2), it is the conclusion of the United
States District Judge that the Complaint filed by plaintiff DARREL REECE HUNTER should be, and hereby is, DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED AND FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
The entire Memorandum of Opinion and Order from District Judge Mary Lou Robinson follows…
This decision was reviewed by West editorial staff and not assigned
editorial enhancements.United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division.
Darrel Reece HUNTER, pro se, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. SUPREME COURT, Barack H. Obama, John McCain, Democratic Nat.com.,
Republican Nat.com., U.S. Congress-House, U.S. Congress-Senate, U.S.
Electoral College (All 50 U.S. States), District of Columbia, Federal
Election Comm. George H.W. Bush, Defendants.
No. 2:08-CV-0232.Jan. 16, 2009.
Darrel Reece Hunter, Amarillo, TX, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
MARY LOU ROBINSON, District Judge.
*1 Plaintiff DARREL REECE HUNTER, acting pro se and proceeding in
forma pauperis, has filed suit complaining against the
above-referenced defendants and has been granted permission to proceed
in forma pauperis. On January 9, 2009, the Court issued an Order
identifying various deficiencies and giving plaintiff until 4:00 p.m.
of January 19, 2009, in which to respond and show cause why this case
should not be dismissed. Plaintiff filed his response on January 15,
2009.In light of plaintiff’s pauper status, the Court is required to screen
his complaint and dismiss it without service of process at any time
the Court makes a determination of any of the factors set forth in
Title 28, United States Code, section 1915(e)(2). The District Judge
has reviewed plaintiff’s pleadings and has viewed the facts alleged by
plaintiff to determine if his claim presents grounds for dismissal or
should proceed to answer by defendants.To the extent plaintiff requests that this Court require any action by
the U.S. SUPREME COURT, this Court does not have authority to do so.As noted in the show cause order, plaintiff does not allege any cause
of action against the remaining defendants, although he does request
relief involving those defendants FN1. By his January 15, 2009
response, plaintiff does not cure this defect and, therefore, has
failed to state a claim against these defendants on which relief can
be granted.FN1. Plaintiff also claims he has “been denied due to the lack of
adequate money” which prevents him from paying the filing fee and
hiring an attorney. Plaintiff does not state exactly what he has been
denied. Plaintiff has been allowed to represent himself and proceed in
forma pauperis in this Court and, therefore, has not been denied
access to the courts by lack of funds.Additionally, having been alerted to the issue of standing by the
Court’s show cause order, plaintiff has utterly failed to show he has
standing to sue for the relief he requests. To demonstrate standing, a
party must show (1) he has suffered an injury in fact; (2) which has a
causal connection to the defendant’s conduct; and (3) that a favorable
decision would be likely to redress the complained of injury. Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d
351 (1992). An injury in fact must be “(a) concrete and particularized
and (b) actual or imminent, nor conjectural or hypothetical.”Id.To show injury, plaintiff claims he was on the presidential primary
ballot in one state and has filed with the FEC as a replacement
candidate. Plaintiff does not plead he received a significant number
of votes in that primary and does not state how he could have become
the presidential nominee based upon the primary in a single state.
Plaintiff appears to concede this point in his Response where he
argues that “Hillary Clinton would most likely have been the DNC
Presidential nominee, but who is to say [plaintiff] would not have
been the VP for Clinton?”Plaintiff then references a May 23, 2000
letter from then-President Bill Clinton and a December 28, 2000 letter
from then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton thanking him for his
letters to them. Nothing about these letters indicates any possibility
that plaintiff could have been chosen or even considered as a running
mate had Hillary Rodham Clinton been a nominee in the 2008
presidential campaign. Plaintiff’s claim of harm fails because it is
“conjectural or hypothetical,” leaving plaintiff without standing to
sue for the requested relief.*2 Plaintiff’s failure to show standing leaves this Court without
jurisdiction to consider this case and the case must be dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).Conclusion
For all the reasons set forth above and pursuant to Title 28, United
States Code, section 1915(e)(2), it is the conclusion of the United
States District Judge that the Complaint filed by plaintiff DARREL
REECE HUNTER should be, and hereby is, DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE
A CLAIM ON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED AND FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.IT IS SO ORDERED.
N.D.Tex.,2009.
Hunter v. U.S. Supreme Court
Slip Copy, 2009 WL 111683 (N.D.Tex.)END OF DOCUMENT
Actually, this case never made it to the evidentiary stage, so the judge neither saw the COLB nor accepted or rejected the COLB. It was “DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED AND FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.” In other words, dismissed on Rule 12(b)(6) (no claim) and Rules 12(b)(1) grounds (lack of standing / jurisdiction).
The only problem is this case was dismissed on evidence, so the rules were broken, because the Judge accepted the claim of the COLB, without seeing the COLB.
Hi, Dennis. The answer to your question is, because none of these cases has reached trial. If one does make it to trial, then the Federal Rules of Evidence will govern whether the documents that each party wants to offer as proof are authentic and admissible. (If a case is in state court, e.g., California, look to that state’s rules of evidence for guidance.)
Do you have a question about a specific piece of evidence? Keep in mind that the certification of live birth (the actual paper) that contains a seal from the proper official is “self-authenticating” so the testimony of a witness per Rule 1005 would not be necessary, even though it is technically a “compilation”. See Rule 902.
I have been doing a lot of digging on my own and found a Federal rule for cases. I am out of my league here but this means so much to me and the future for my Children I just have to share it. Why does someone not cite rule’s 1001-1005 for definitions of evidence. I am astounded at the audacity of our Legal System and it’s obvious lack of respect for the Truth. I think this might help as it states in 1001 that to be original it needs to reflect the Original in fact Obama’s does not. Here are Rules 1001-1008 and can be found numerous places.www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule1001
ARTICLE X. CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS
Rule 1001. Definitions
For purposes of this article the following definitions are applicable:
(1) Writings and recordings. “Writings” and “recordings” consist of letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation.
(2) Photographs. “Photographs” include still photographs, X-ray films, video tapes, and motion pictures.
(3) Original. An “original” of a writing or recording is the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An “original” of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an “original”.
(4) Duplicate. A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original.
Notes
Rule 1002. Requirement of Original
To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress.
Notes
Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
Notes
Rule 1004. Admissibility of Other Evidence of Contents
The original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if–
(1) Originals lost or destroyed. All originals are lost or have been destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith; or
(2) Original not obtainable. No original can be obtained by any available judicial process or procedure; or
(3) Original in possession of opponent. At a time when an original was under the control of the party against whom offered, that party was put on notice, by the pleadings or otherwise, that the contents would be a subject of proof at the hearing, and that party does not produce the original at the hearing; or
(4) Collateral matters. The writing, recording, or photograph is not closely related to a controlling issue.
Notes
Rule 1005. Public Records
The contents of an official record, or of a document authorized to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed, including data compilations in any form, if otherwise admissible, may be proved by copy, certified as correct in accordance with rule 902 or testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If a copy which complies with the foregoing cannot be obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence, then other evidence of the contents may be given.
Notes
Rule 1006. Summaries
The contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. The originals, or duplicates, shall be made available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court.
Notes
Rule 1007. Testimony or Written Admission of Party
Contents of writings, recordings, or photographs may be proved by the testimony or deposition of the party against whom offered or by that party’s written admission, without accounting for the nonproduction of the original.
Notes
Rule 1008. Functions of Court and Jury
When the admissibility of other evidence of contents of writings, recordings, or photographs under these rules depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the question whether the condition has been fulfilled is ordinarily for the court to determine in accordance with the provisions of rule 104. However, when an issue is raised (a) whether the asserted writing ever existed, or (b) whether another writing, recording, or photograph produced at the trial is the original, or (c) whether other evidence of contents correctly reflects the contents, the issue is for the trier of fact to determine as in the case of other issues of fact.
Since these case keep getting clobbered!!!
I guess I have some questions about forming/finding a Grand Jury…. What are “presents”….is it a form? and where can I find and file one. lol!! Has it ever been done before? And if so, how was the Grand Jury formed? If we don’t know if it’s ever been done before…then where can we got to find out if it was ever used in the past in order to find a precedent!
Certainly, in order for the founding fathers to put something like this in, they must of had some notion of where it comes from and how this would work. Is it in the Federalist papers?
As to a citizen’s standing, how is Mr. Hunter’s standing disinguishable from the citizens/voters in United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974)?
Yes, please. How does a candidate who failed to secure more than few votes meet the Lujan factors?
That a candidate on the ballot has no standing.
That a U.S. citizen is not harmed by an ineligible fraud for a president.
Do I need to go on?
What aspect of the application of the factors enumerated in Lujan do you disagree with?
Poppet,
You are a very wise man. Having the judicial memo in hand explaining exactly why a case was dismissed can go a long way in showing what not to do in the future.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Although I disagree with the Judge, she stated her reason’s
why. Something to be aware of if filing……..Dan