Title: Serving the Obama Class Action Suit Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Aug 3, 2010 Author:Van Irion Post Date:2010-08-03 20:30:51 by James Deffenbach Keywords:None Views:198 Comments:15
I could have sworn that I posted a reply to this last night.
This video clip shows four guys (plus the cameraman) in DC to "serve" their lawsuit against Obamacare on Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Holder, and (as best they can manage) Obama. One of the four is identified as the principal plaintiff and I would suspect the other three are listed as secondary plaintiffs.
Obviously there's no lawyer involved in any of this, and it is doomed from the start. Nobody involved with this silliness bothered to read Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2) and (i). And nobody read the US Constitution, Article I, sec. 6 clause 1.
A bona fide lawyer is REQUIRED for a class action lawsuit, for the simple reason that an amateur is not allowed to handle the case for the rest of the class. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the judge has to make the decisions of (1) whether this is appropriate as a class action, and (2) whether the lawyer representing the class is competent enough to be trusted with the legal fate of such a multitude of people -- the judge could insist that the plaintiffs get a better lawyer to carry the case forward.
Van Irion IS a lawyer, numbnuts. And, if I were you, and I thank God I am not, I don't think I would talk about the qualifications, or lack thereof, of any other lawyer. You have proven to be an Obama knee padder when the evidence presented to you would have your boy convicted of fraud by any honest jury in the country.
He's a patent attorney. Big whoop. It's clear that he didn't read the applicable rules, or else he thinks he's so special that the rules don't apply to him.
It turns out that he's running for Congress (on an "abolish the IRS" platform) and is using this doomed lawsuit as a publicity stunt. Although he's not admitted to the federal courts in DC, he is serving the papers in DC, a pretty good indication that this lawsuit is just for show.
Oh, that's not quite all he is and you know that too. Here is a little more information about him in case anyone believes your bs (although I don't know why they would when you are such a big Obama supporter).
He (Van Irion) is a patent and constitutional attorney with his own law firm, Law Office of Van R Irion PLLC. His practice includes patents, business transactions, contract disputes, civil litigation, and constitutional law. He is veteran of Operation Desert Shield, serving in the US Air Force as an Air Traffic Controller. He has a Biochemistry degree from the University of California and a Law Degree from McGeorge School of Law. He formerly founded a biotech company to research treatments for stroke and acute injury and served for many years as a volunteer fire fighter and EMT. Van is currently seeking to serve the public again as the U.S. Congressman for Tennessee’s 3rd District. Irion is pronounced “ear-ee-on”
And what kind of "attorney" are you? One who refuses to see the evidence when thrown directly in your face, at least when it shows that your boy, Obama, is a Kenyan fraud who is illegally occupying the White House. I would hire Van Irion anytime before I would take your services pro bono.
But even if the lawsuit is thrown out it doesn't mean he is a bad lawyer. No one yet has gotten any of the lawyer whores in black dresses who call themselves "judges" to take the case against Obama. Apparently he is well loved by the criminal class and they protect their fellow criminals out of professional courtesy.
Well, here's a choice: either he (1) is so incompetent that he doesn't know the federal rules or (2) is competent enough to know the rules but violates them deliberately.
Well, here's a choice: either he (1) is so incompetent that he doesn't know the federal rules or (2) is competent enough to know the rules but violates them deliberately.
No more than the whores in the black robes do each and every day when they deny people's right to sue your Kenyan, claiming they have no "standing." And then rule on things that they don't even have jurisdiction to hear, let alone make a ruling. As I said before, if I needed a lawyer for some reason and he was available, I would pick Irion over you if you offered your services pro bono. I wouldn't trust you to handle any case that involved anything more than a bag of horse $#it or something of approximately equal value. A lawyer who still backs Obama with all the video evidence showing that he is a foreigner is not to be trusted. And it makes it look like you may not be wrapped too tight.
Despite his claim of being a "constitutional lawyer", Irion clearly does not know or understand the significance of the "speech or debate" provision in the US Constitution, Article I,sec. 6, clause 1. Otherwise he wouldn't be bothering Pelosi and Reid (Reid, incidentally, is party leader, not a Senate officer).
does not know or understand the significance of the "speech or debate" provision in the US Constitution, Article I,sec. 6, clause 1. Otherwise he wouldn't be bothering Pelosi and Reid (Reid, incidentally, is party leader, not a Senate officer).
I understand it. Surely you're not trying to deceive anyone into believing that he tried to Arrest them during a session of Congress -- are you? I hope not, although they certainly could be arrested in a Congressional session if the charges were Treason, Felony and/or Breach of the Peace. If you're under the impression that they have some sort of absolute diplomatic immunity from being subpoenaed, charged, or arrested, they definitely don't. Nor were they detained in-transit.
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1: They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Members attending, going to or returning from either House are privileged from arrest, except for treason, felony or breach of the peace. One may not sue a Senator or Representative for slander occurring during Congressional debate, nor may speech by a member of Congress during a Congressional session be the basis for criminal prosecution. The latter was affirmed when Mike Gravel published over 4,000 pages of the Pentagon Papers in the Congressional Record, which might have otherwise been a criminal offense. This clause has also been interpreted in Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972) to provide protection to aides and staff of sitting members of Congress, so long as their activities relate to legislative matters.