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:181 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.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
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.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
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.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
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).
So, Reid and Pelosi can commit any fraud they want and never be held accountable, right? And I know what Reid is. Among other things, he is a horse's @$$.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
I'm not ignoring it. But do you think it goes so far as to protect them from committing a huge fraud on the public? You know, freedom of speech is not absolute, at least not for us peons. I doubt it is for the whores you love so much either.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
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.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
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.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Shoonra: 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.
James_Deffenbach: 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."
Barack Obama has no standing to hold the office of President here without proof of eligibility per the natural born citizen requirement.
How Crazy are those “Birthers?” By JB Williams Thursday, October 15, 2009 . What had “birthers” done that was so over the top? They asked to see Barack Obama’s birth certificate, and to date, they have been denied that “crazy” request. In fact, multiple law suits have been filed across the country in numerous forms, simply seeking access to Obama’s personal history, and most recently, a judge has fined one of those attorney’s $20,000 for “filing frivolous law suits” on the matter. . But where he was born isn’t so important. The fact that he was born to a father who was at no time a citizen of the United States, is the problem. On this basis alone, Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the United States and that makes him an “unconstitutional president” at best! . The “birthers” aren’t crazy. They’re right! The Constitution either means what it says or it means nothing at all. If it means nothing at all, then the people are on their own and the time to alter or abolish has arrived. [end excerpts]
Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suddenly have abandoned plans to assess damages against an attorney whose clients are challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president after he argued that if there was to be punishment, he would have the right to know whether the defendants could have mitigated their injury by publicly releasing Obama's birth documentation.
The decision came from Judge Dolores Sloviter in the Kerchner vs. Obama case handled by attorney Mario Apuzzo. The court had ordered Apuzzo to explain why defense costs shouldn't be assessed against him for the "frivolous" appeal. . Apuzzo represents Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. . But Apuzzo had explained to the court that under standard rules of judicial procedure, while they allow for damages to be assessed in "frivolous" cases – even though the district never made that ruling – there also is a responsibility on the part of the defendants to mitigate their damages. [sic} In this case, he asked the court to "enforce my right to discover whether defendants had a copy of the [certificate of live birth, Obama's] 1961 long- form birth certificate, and related documents showing that Obama was born in Hawaii which they could have simply shared [with] … the Kerchner plaintiffs." . "To confirm the veracity of the defendants' representations, I also have a right under (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) 26(a)(1) and 26(b)(1) to receive a copy of those documents," he argued. [sic] "I am requesting limited discovery of Obama's (certificate of live birth), his 1961 long-form birth certificate, and any documents that may be relevant in showing where Obama was born, along with a hearing on the record at which I will have a fair opportunity to present witnesses, evidence and defenses to the defendants' claim of damages and costs," he wrote.
The court's response was to drop the "Order to Show Cause" almost immediately, referencing only Apuzzo's "research." . In the Hollister case, attorney John Hemenway was threatened by a federal judge with financial penalties for bringing a court challenge to Obama's presidency.
The Hollister case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertson, who notably ruled during the 2008 election campaign that the federal legal dispute had been "twittered" and, therefore, resolved. . "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court," Robertson wrote.
Then the judge suggested financial penalties against Hemenway for bringing the case. Hemenway responded that the process then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing to see documentation regarding the judge's statements – not supported by any evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly "vetted."
Hemenway warned at the time, "If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.
"The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery," Hemenway said.
The court ultimately backed off its threat of financial penalties [sic] . Apuzzo said it is "self-evident" under the Constitution that "anyone aspiring to be president has to conclusively prove that he or she is eligible to hold that office. Part of that burden is conclusively showing that one is a 'natural born citizen.' Hence, the citizenship status of Obama is critical to the question of plaintiffs having standing, for it is that very statute which is the basis of their injury in fact."
"At this time he was still a private individual who had the burden of proving that he satisfied each and every element of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. That plaintiffs filed their action at this time is important for it not only sets the time by which we are to judge when their standing attached to their action against Obama, Congress and the other defendants … but also to show that Obama has the burden of proof to show that he is a 'natural born citizen' and satisfied the other requirements of Article II," Apuzzo wrote earlier. [end excerpts]
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You'll never get through to an Obama sycophant. They are victims of partial-birth abortions in which the only thing killed was the brain.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace