The judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that election fraud suspected in the 2008 presidential campaign essentially was canceled by the inauguration of Barack Obama.
The ruling comes in a lawsuit that was filed on the same day Obama was inaugurated in Washington by a team of taxpayers, voters, presidential candidates, members of the military and others who alleged Obama failed to meet the Constitution’s requirements for the presidency.
Taitz said her plaintiffs definitely will pursue further action, probably a request for rehearing at two levels of federal court, while Kreep told WND he was working with his clients on the results, and they soon would make a decision regarding an appeal.
The issue was the “standing” of the groups bringing the complaint against Obama. The district court essentially said nobody had standing to bring a complaint, but the appellate judges said the individuals who were politically connected to the race should hold an interest in a fair outcome – including whether there was an ineligible candidate aboard the ticket.
The individuals were Alan Keyes and Wiley S. Drake, candidates for the White House on the American Independent Party ticket in California; Gail Lightfoot, a member of the California Libertarian Party; who was a write-in candidate; and Markham Robinson, a certified California elector for the American Independent Party.
The judges’ panel observed: “These plaintiffs argue that they have standing because, as candidates running against Obama in the 2008 election, they had an interest in having a fair competition. … If Obama entered the presidential race without meeting the requirements for the office, they contend, the candidates did not have a fair opportunity to obtain votes in their favor.”
The opinion from judges Harry Pregerson, Ray Fisher and Marsha Berzon explained the concept is called “competitive standing,” and they affirmed it as legitimate grounds for concern.
“This notion of ‘competitive standing’ has been recognized by several circuits,” the opinion said. “We, too, have upheld the notion of ‘competitive standing.’ In Owen v. Mulligan, we held that the ‘potential loss of an election’ was an injury-in-fact sufficient to give a local candidate and Republican party officials standing. In that case, the candidate for local office sued the Postal Service for giving his rival a preferential mailing rate, in violation of its own regulations.”
The opinion said the case had the candidate and party officials seeking “to prevent their opponent from gaining an unfair advantage.”
However, in Obama’s case, the court panel simply said once the inauguration was held, the claims evaporated.
“The original complaint was filed on Jan. 20, 2009, at 3:26 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, after President Obama was officially sworn is as president,” the judges wrote. “Once the 2008 election was over and the president sworn in, Keyes, Drake and Lightfoot were no longer ‘candidates’ for the 2008 general election. Moreover, they have not alleged any interest in running against President Obama in the future.
“Therefore, none of the plaintiffs could claim that they would be injured by the ‘potential loss of an election,'” the court said.
Actually, Obama flubbed the Jan. 20 public oath, and retook it later, out of public view, according to the White House.
In a footnote, the judges confirmed that “some cases” have held that competitive standing continues beyond a given election, but they don’t think so in this case.
The court also dismissed a quo warranto action – essentially a court case demanding to know by what authority a given official is acting – because they believe such an action can be filed only in the District of Columbia, as well as FOIA claims requesting information.
The case also unsuccessfully alleged violations of the federal racketeering law, RICO.
“We’ve sent our recommendation to the plaintiffs,” said Kreep. “I was surprised [by the opinion] given the comments made by the justice Berzon about this was an important constitutional issue that needed to be resolved.”
Taitz told WND that it is important to note that the court did not confirm that Obama is eligibile; just that there were technical troubles with all of the current case claims.
“They were careful not to state that Barack Obama is eligible for the presidency,” she said. “[The opinion] doesn’t say he has a valid birth certificate, valid Social Security number.”
“All is says is nobody has standing,” she said.
Her plan is to submit motions for rehearing at the 9th Circuit and other courts, based on the newest ruling, which seems to contradict earlier rulings she said she obtained in related cases. Her cases that were dismissed because they were brought before the inauguration and therefore lacked the requisite “ripeness” demanded by courts.
“It seems we are residing within a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime where the courts and judges are simply used as puppets to come up with some excuse to deny the complaints,” she told WND.
WND previously reported the case claims Obama’s qualifications were not checked properly, and that has resulted in a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a man occupying the Oval Office who does not meet the requirements that only a “natural born Citizen” can hold the office.
Since his election, sometimes using private attorneys and sometimes using taxpayer-funded legal teams, Obama has battled almost six-dozen lawsuits across the country, including several that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, to keep his records concealed from the public.
He even withheld the document he has since released when a career Army doctor, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, was court-martialed and imprisoned for asking for verification that the commander-in-chief was legitimate.
Kreep, on behalf of Wiley S. Drake, a vice-presidential candidate on the 2008 ballot in California; and Markham Robinson, an elector from the state; had argued that there is precedent in the U.S. for removing an unqualified chief executive.
That happened in North Dakota, Kreep argued, when Thomas H. Moodie was removed from the office of governor in the 1930s. Moodie had failed to meet a state residency requirement to be governor. But he was elected anyway, installed and ultimately removed from office by the state Supreme Court over that failure.
The plaintiffs also cite an earlier California case in which a candidate for president was removed from the ballot by state officials because he failed to qualify for the office under the U.S. Constitution’s age requirements.
The plaintiffs had argued that the Constitution was too important to ignore.
“A provision of the Constitution may not be disregarded by means of a popular vote of the people,” the plaintiffs’ earlier brief said, “as there are specific guidelines for amending the Constitution of the United States. … Even if the people of the United States voted to elect as president a candidate who did not qualify for the position, that vote would not be sufficient to overcome the constitutional requirements for office and make that candidate eligible.
“Here, the underlying issue is one arising under the Art. 2, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution, whether Obama meets the eligibility requirements. … As established above, plaintiffs have standing to bring this action as they have suffered a concrete injury in fact, caused by Obama’s ineligibility for the office of United States president, for which the court has a remedy,” the brief said.
The issue stems from the constitutional demand that the president – unlike others in the federal government – must be a “natural born citizen.” WND has covered numerous challenges and lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility. Some have alleged that he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has claimed or that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama’s father was a subject of the British crown at Obama’s birth – from being eligible for the office.
While Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” was released by the White House, other documentation for him remains sealed, including kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
The justices on the Supreme Court repeatedly have refused to address the constitutional questions involved. The justices apparently are “avoiding” the Obama issue, according to one member of the court. Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee when the issue arose. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.
“I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.”
Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.
“I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.”
“And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such requirement for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.”
“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”
“We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.”
One recent case to go to the high court was brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Greg Hollister.
When the justices refused to listen to the concerns, Laurence Elgin, an expert working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the case, said their “defiance of the court cases, their attitude they don’t really need to adhere to the law, is really unparalleled.”
“The public is going to grow increasingly concerned about Obama and the failure of the courts to deal with these concerns,” he told WND.
The same two attorneys also had another case that ran through the state court system that raised similar issues and ultimately was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, which simply posted a notice it would not hear the case.
The image that Obama released as his birth documentation, which has been challenged repeatedly by computer, imaging and document experts as a fraud: