Second MO State Rep Consents to be Plaintiff to Upcoming Lawsuit
Submitted by Phil on Fri, Mar 6, 200921 Comments
According to Dr. Taitz, Missouri State Rep. Cynthia Davis has agreed to become the next Plaintiff in an upcoming lawsuit designed to order the President to furnish his vital documentation for evidence of eligibility.
Rep. Davis is the second Missourian after Rep. Tim Jones to agree to be a part of the case.
Other Plaintiffs in the upcoming lawsuit include the following:
- New Hampshire (1 State Rep)
- Tennessee (4 State Reps)
- Oklahoma (unverified 1 State Rep)
- Missouri (1 State Rep)
- Army:
- Sgt. Matthew Edwards (National Guard)
- Major General Carroll D. Childers P.E. [Professional Engineer] (Retired)
- 1st Lt. Scott Easterling
- Col. Harry Riley, NSA (Retired)
- Navy:
- Air Force:
- Lt. Col. Chuck Miller (Retired)
- Marines:
- Anonymous Officer
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
-Phil
I will throw out a couple more thoughts for consumption. Ms. Davis is joining a case (more than one case?) which has not been well thought out. I’ve already pointed out the standing problem; Ms. Davis would fail as an “interested party” because she has no claim on the office of POTUS. Additionally, as pointed out above, quo warranto is implied from the D.C. Code provision; that interpretation is vulnerable, because to read it as allowing an end run around the impeachment process violates the separation of powers. Congress cannot delegate its power, and that makes the statute unconsitutional as applied (not to be confused with facially unconstitutional, which I do not think it is).
Orly Taitz plows headlong into a matter without reading the statute she has cited, and without heeding the recent Hollister case. The quo warranto statute provides that venue for bringing such a suit lies in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Orly intends to file in the US Supreme Court, which is going to get her tossed for the second time. SCOTUS does not have original jurisdiction. If Orly goes the route she is supposed to — first to the District Court — she will have to find an attorney admitted to practice in that Court to sign the pleadings, and that is going to be a problem for her. That is the same court that refused to admit Phil Berg on his motion for admission pro hac vice, and After Hollister, I doubt any DC-admitted attorney is going to sign on. Orly’s motion for admission pro hac vice will
meet the same fate: she will be called upon to produce her evidence in open court, and right now she has none.
Phil,
State legislators could request their Congressional counterparts to hold a hearing on Obama’s eligibility. It may very well be that one or more has contacted their state’s federal delgation to make such a request. Coming from local elected officials might give it some traction.
If you are referring to the quo warranto argument that Leo Donofrio posted, keep in mind that even Leo has referred to as a “theory.” It is an untested idea. He gave an example of the Senate’s removal of an ineligible member who had not acquired citizenship, but that does not set precedent. Both the House and the Senate have internal rules that permit them to determine the qualification of their members, so that makes the case distinguishable from the instant one where the two chambers would be investigating the qualifications of the President. My view is that Leo is wrong to equate the two — he’s trying to make the case that there are two mechanisms for removal of the Executive, quo warranto and impeachment. I think he’s wrong. The Constitution expressly provides only for impeachment, and the quo warranto is being implied by Leo by virtue of a statute. The courts prefer the express over the implied.
I should note that Leo also has stated that he is not willing to actually pursue this theory; he is hoping that another (possibly Apuzzo?) will take the baton.
Thanks for keeping me informed and I do a handshake over the net
Isn’t this the Rep who submitted a bill requiring a birth certificate to prove eligibility but would not allow a COLB?
Roderick,
I know you did not call me a name. Since you began by using an example of how you would respod to someone calling you a name I, too, used an exmaple of how I would respond to the same situation. That’s all. As always, are entitled to your opinoins.
I do not see in my notation calling you a name and have no reason to call you a name. I am also busy and can only respond to these posta and or news articles on an infrequent basis not every five minutes. What you all have to be careful about in following this man is he will lead you over a cliff. 10 years from now his name will be stricken from list of presidents as I don’t see him coming up with a birth certificate or the Constitution being changed. In other words he can avoid this all he wants but there is no chance of him becoming a dictator like Castro the man he loves and adores. Thusly when his time is up he will be harrassed and jeered and pretty much thrown to the dogs by the American people for being a cheat and a con-man.
Fear not. “Mene Mene tekel upharsin” (Dan. 5:25) Days are numbered and they will be found wanting.
Bet you would just love to see a case heard on its merits.
A quo warranto action must be filed either by the federal government, or by someone “in relation” to the federal government. Someone “in relation” must be a “person interested” in the office, which the courts have construed to mean a candidate or someone else who could otherwise lay claim to the office.
As the dismissal order in Berg v. Obama explains, a candidate in the election, such as McCain or Clinton, would have standing. But standing alone does not prevent the threat of sanctions, as the basis for the lawsuit must also be nonfrivolous.
The quo warranto statute authorizes a quo warranto action in the DC district court. Federal quo warranto actions have otherwise been not recognized by the federal courts. The quo warranto statute does not preclude a court case on other grounds.
Roderick,
“You wqould be the first one to worship it although it has nothing to offer. The man is a zilch, a zero, a nothing and for sure no messiah.”
Thanks for checking in.
No, he is no Messiah and NO man (or statue) should be worshipped as a Messiah. And just because you call me a name and I do not bother to respond to tell you that I am not what you called me does not make me what you called me. I was taught to ignore people who choose to call me names. I am not even getting into all that other stuff you wrote.
More later.
Hopefully Georgetown JD (or one of the other attorneys) will come back on and explain more about “standing” in relation to Quo Warranto.
Exactly which committee will be conducting those hearings? And which party controls Congress?
If someone else called him that on the news and he doesn’t recuse himself from same, he is accepting that as title. That is why I have stated in other writings the facts. The fact is this whatever he is, he would like nothing more than to blow up the Washington Monument in a controlled demolition and replace it with a big statue of himself lifting his hands to the sky so that everybody in the world can bow down before it. You wqould be the first one to worship it although it has nothing to offer. The man is a zilch, a zero, a nothing and for sure no messiah.
“Standing” is so murky and subject to myriad interpretations. Can anyone cite chapter and verse in the Constitution where it clearly defines who WOULD have standing to bring forth a POTUS eligibility suit (w/o the threat of being sanctioned by a Judge)at a)the SCOTUS level, b) the State level, and c) the DC District Court level? And, finally, does a quo warranto petition effectively circumvent all other courts at the State and federal levels? It’s so hard to believe that the People can be so cavalierly denied proper redress of well-founded grievances. For me, that’s the nub of the problem. Very disturbing.
GeorgetownJD,
Pardon my interjection at this point in your conversation, but what about instead having State legislators appearing before Congress in some setting making a request for investigating the President’s eligibility? I am curious to know your take on that and whether or not that kind of action would necessitate quo warranto.
-Phil
Name the ones who have standing on a quo warranto, please, JeffM. If you will read the case law, you would know that the person who has standing to bring a quo warranto suit is the one who alleges he/she has a lawful claim to the office that the alleged usurper holds. In this case, the person with standing is the one who claims that he/she is the rightful occupant of the office of POTUS.
So please point out, for the benefit of everyone on this site, who among the putative plaintiffs in Orly Taitz’s upcoming suit are the ones who allege they have a rightful claim to be POTUS? As far as I can tell, that would be Joe Biden or perhaps John McCain. Scott Easterling and SSgt Brian Keith, and retired generals and colonels, and Missouri and Tennessee state representatives, and a Washington state resident who lost her election bid for the state director of elections — none of these people has a snowball’s chance of convincing any court that they are the REAL POTUS.
Familiarize yourself with the Newman case before you expound upon quo warranto.
GeorgetownJD,
Did you miss the others who DO have standing in this case? That’s right. You truly feel everyone lacks standing, correct? No matter. Standing is a judicial fabrication, something not mentioned in the Constitution.
The Constitution is clear that everyone is responsible for upholding it. When that concept is undermined, standing or not, harm or not, duress or not, the Constitution is no longer valid.
Roderick,
“Colorable claim to be president? She is representing the people who voted for her to uphold the law”
Yes, Mrs. Davis is a representative of those who voted for her but her representation does not give her standing for this lawsuit. Also Obama never called himself the “messiah”, others gave him that title. He could probably care less what you call him except don’t call him late for dinner.
Colorable claim to be president? She is representing the people who voted for her to uphold the law. If I was ‘bamy tonight I would be going to sleep in a cold sweat. This is turning out to be a mockery of a sham, a sham of a mockery. What’s wrong ‘bamy’s not calling himself “messiah” anymore. Worse unemployment figures in 25 years. Broken campaign promises. The man is going to be run out of the white house within two years. You heard it here first. Biden is licking his chops.
No, Roderick, Ms. Cynthia lacks standing and that is why the case will be thrown out. If Cynthia Davis had a colorable claim to the office of POTUS, then she would have standing in a quo warranto action. Unfortunately, Orly Taitz believes that stature equals standing, so she is doomed to repeat the mistake of bringing suit on behalf of the wrong plaintiffs.
Uh let’s see yeah I know the judge is going to become perturbed and throw Ms. Cynthia out of his chambers for doing her job as an elected official of the people she represents. Uh let me rephrase that for those ‘bamy supporters and for cnn the brain washing channel who still thinks this is going to go away. Listen up and if you miss it the first time re-read it. Ms. Cynthia is only doing her job in upholding the Constitution and making it stick. ‘bamy you my man are in big trouble not only with the State Representatives who are upholding the law but with the American people because it is more and more obvious that you were born in Kenya and you are here to steal from the taxpayers. As always to be continued…