I’ve been engaged in an email conversation with Jerry Collette about his Obama eligibility lawsuit in Florida. Today he sent me the “Amended Complaint” that he intends to file in Collette v. Obama and said, “thanks for all the help.”
That comment triggers mixed feelings. It is my firm belief that this lawsuit will be dismissed and that nothing Mr. Collette is able to do or that I could help him do could change that. I don’t believe that anything I did got him closer to his goal of adjudicating Barack Obama’s eligibility. It’s not a matter of degree: either the case is dismissed or it isn’t.
What I did do was to criticize things I found, as you may have seen in my article, MTD filed in Collette v. Obama. Mr. Collette changed some things as a result of my criticism and I guess the Complaint is less flawed than it was before. When we started he had three causes of action. Now, it’s down to two. If I could convince him to reduce it to zero, then I think the complaint would be perfect 😉
Problems with service, venue and joining parties that I think still exist in the Complaint could be fixed but there are other flaws that I don’t think can be fixed, and the foremost of these is a lack of standing. I got my legal education on standing from reading the scholarly opinion of Judge Surrick in the Berg v. Obama et al. case back in October of 2008. Surrick cautioned:
Standing can be a difficult concept for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
Mr. Collette believes that some argument he has, but hasn’t shared with me, lets him get around the problem that his grievance is diffuse, no different from any other voter anywhere. I don’t think he understand the concept of standing.
The second uncorrectable flaw is the legal theory that based solely on the US Constitution, “Defendants owed a duty to plaintiff to ascertain that defendant Obama meets the Eligibility Requirements.” The Constitution doesn’t even envision the existence of political parties and I find it hard to imagine that in any construction that it could be construed to place a duty on a party. How ever the framers of the Constitution intended that only eligible Presidents serve, it wasn’t through political parties. I should also point out that even if the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party of Florida did nothing, Obama would still have been elected in 2008 without Florida’s 27 electoral votes.
I am not opposed in principle to some sort of formal determination of the authenticity of any President Obama’s birth certificate, nor am I opposed to the Supreme Court deciding what natural born citizen means in a more explicit way. What I am opposed to is the courts being peppered with lawsuits that are losers from the get go. Already 5 judges, federal and state, have ruled that Obama meets the definition of natural born citizen and Mr. Collette brushes aside all of the over one hundred dismissals of similar lawsuits, believing that all he has to do is find the right judge and he will prevail. Albert Einstein has been quoted as defining insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Note: Barack Obama’s attorney, Richard B. Rosenthal of Miami, has filed a notice of appearance in the case.
There is no reason for you to have mixed feelings. While it’s true that the birther suits have been plagued by very poor legal technique, that’s not why they always have and always will lose.
They are simply on the wrong side of the law. Always and forever.
In fact, you might be performing a public service in assisting one of the birthers to file properly and STILL be dismissed.
Birthers hang a lot of value on their cases being dismissed on procedural issues. If you can help them clear that hurdle, well, godspeed. They’re still going to lose.
I would like to note that Jerry Collette never responded to my comment in the previous thread, nor has he sent me an e-mail with an explanation for the double standard.
I am doing this for purely altruistic reasons, because Seamus Romney is not here to give his side of the story.
The amended complaint, once served, supercedes the original complaint. The defendants will again have whatever number of days are permitted under the Florida rules to file new motions to dismiss.
If Mr.Colette gets hopping on this immediately, he stands a decent chance of seeing his ballot challenge dismissed BEFORE the election in November.
“I don’t believe that anything I did got him closer to his goal of adjudicating Barack Obama’s eligibility.”
Even if you did, it wouldn’t be a bad thing, would it?
The more birther lawsuits get tossed on the “actual merits” (instead of standing – I know that’s part of the merits – or procedural issues like improper service), the less they can spin their “they are playing procedural games” story.
The masses will never buy into their crazy conspiracy theories, but they might be confused by claims as “their highly-paid lawyers managed to beat us on procedural grounds” because many legal laymen could relate to that (they’ve seen enough movies where the big bad company beat the little man in court).
Doc, I assure you, I clearly understand the concept of standing.
P.S. I started with two causes of action and still have two. I started with three challenges to eligibility and now have only two.
I didn’t even read your comment. I don’t even have enough time to read or respond to all comments on birther threads, much less anti birther threads. Sam Sewell, Director of the Florida Ballot Challenge, often answers posts on this blog, but he’s pretty busy right now, too. Nothing personal, misha, and I’m not ducking your issue, whatever it may be.
Whatever we say on these posts isn’t going to resolve the issues. They’ll be resolved in court … or not. Time will tell.
Doomed.
Doomed.
(And a disgusting waste of taxpayer resources.)
I doubt that you do but we hope you will understand the concept of awarding costs and sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits very soon.
No, it wouldn’t be a bad thing, and I updated the article this morning to say this directly.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question: If your lawsuit gets dismissed for a lack of standing, would you conclude that you don’t clearly understand the concept of standing, or say that you just had not found the right judge?
The answer is important in the discussion. If you attribute all losses to the wrong judge, then your belief in yourself and your cause is a matter of faith, not one of law. I have nothing against faith, but it doesn’t count in a lawsuit.
It really won’t matter how many cases birthers like Mr. Collette lose, their conspiracy bias syndrome interferes with the brain’s normal function to process input. Every piece of new data received is perceived through this dysfunctional bias filter and misinterpreted. It’s a classic mental health problem. Mr. Collette’s synapses are misfiring. If you have ever had to deal with individuals who suffer from chronic mental health problems you would recognize the patterns we observe among the birthers. It may be less severe and less debilitating, but it’s a problem with brain function all the same.
So, alg, based upon that reasoning, if a birther should ever win a case, all anti birthers will then be deemed crazy.
As I’ve said in the past, cognitive dissonance is painful.
But you bring up an interesting conjecture.
Doc, I understand standing, and I understand I have an uphill battle to withstand an attack on it. I think I have found a way to prevail on that issue, but if a judge wants to sweep this case under the rug, I’m sure he’ll find a way, and he might not even need to use standing as a reason to dismiss.
Whatever helps you sleep at night?
Even though the premise is silly, your logic is correct.
So when you lose, that judge must be corrupt. Right?
If the birthers should ever win a case where Obama is determined ineligible and that decision be sustained on appeal (there could always be some crank, wacko judge somewhere), then I think the anti-birthers would have to re-examine their position. I wouldn’t mean we were crazy, though, because we’re saying now that we’re right because the authorities who decide these things agree with us.
So basically you are saying that if you lose in court, it is because of judicial misconduct and not a flaw in your lawsuit.
Effective people have confidence in themselves and do what they think is right, but I think it is unwise not to re-examine ones position after a setback and realistically assess what one believes in the light of new information. Our culture has visual metaphors for people who don’t so this, including an ostrich with its head in the sand.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/BirtherHeadInSand.jpg
I’m not a psychologist, and even those who are typically don’t diagnose over the Internet.
I cannot help but think, however, that the Dunning-Kruger effect could be at work here. I’m not a lawyer and so I won’t make a firm assertion that Mr. Collette is a crank rather than truly brilliant. However, the Florida judge that hears the case is presumably a lawyer and should know the difference. Believing that an adverse decision is simply a judge who willfully decides against the facts sounds delusional (word not used in a clinical sense) to me. See my article:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/is-ocd-a-delusion/
Especially if it’s over a hundred times by many different judges from progressive to conservative and various backgrounds and experiences who all studied for many years and who were tested vigorously on their knowledge and who all swore to uphold the same laws.
“It is the obvious which is so difficult to see most of the time. People say ‘It’s as plain as the nose on your face.’ But how much of the nose on your face can you see, unless someone holds a mirror up to you?”
― Isaac Asimov, I, Robot
And as an attorney with 26 years of litigating experience, I assure you that you do not understand standing.
Not surprisingly we have a similar concept in France where an action may be deemed “unreceivable” by the Court; I’m probably wrong in applying French legal concepts to your system (not that it ever stopped Apuzzo), but coincidentally — and unsurprisingly — it is my professional opinion that Mr Collette’s pleadings would ALSO be deemed “unreceivable” buy a French Court.
So I too doubt that he understands standing at all.
“. . . I understand I have an uphill battle . . .”
There is a person with eyes tightly shut and ears plugged making exaggerated, exhausting, dramatic and awkward steps trying to climb up a mountain that is not there.
O nons!
I now have a vision in my mind of Taitz trying to litigate in the French court system on the basis that Emerich de Vattel wrote The Law of Nations (or to award it its full verbopomposity, Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains) in the French language, so France must have jurisdiction in matters of the constitution of Les Etats Unis, and Taitz has standing because she’s from Europe.
Now that would be a giggle.
I think it is very likely that our Courts would not show Orly the same patience yours have — but even if they did, the costs would pile up & eventually force her to stop — it depends how rich she is.
Jerry Collette reminds me of Dean Haskin who wrote “Please provide me with your email address so I can gloat when you’re shown to be woefully deficient in your understanding (and in your ability to prophesy).” when I told him his case will be tossed.
Otherwise known as “Ruling on the merits of law”.
… how rich the hubby is.
That is not obvious from your amended filing.
Funny how you appear to suggest that your failures in court will be because of the ‘Judge wanting to sweep this case under the rug’…
Fascinating… Explains a lot about you…
Yes you are. You just did. (Borrowed from Lewis Black)
‘Til her daddy takes the Tesla away. (Apologies to the Beach Boys)
I appreciate (trust me) how much time answering things takes and I appreciate it that you came by.
For the record, though, you have left more than twice as many comments on this blog as Sam Sewell has.
Dude, you can’t win because truth is not on your side. Obama was born in Hawaii, his mom was a citizen, he’s a natural born citizen for two reasons, and all the racism and wishing and making stuff up and tying up courts and fake evidence and razzle dazzle BS in the world, CANNOT change the fact that all of you nutcase birthers are full of poop, and cannot win because truth is not on your side.
Sometimes the good guys win in this world. Deal with it.
Jerry and Sam: This is going to happen, so get used to it –
A likely scenario:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/10/likely-scenario.html
I’d love to see what proof Mr. Collette intends to offer concerning his claim for money damages. What monetary injury has he suffered? The inconsistency between his claims — injunctive relief, on the one hand, which is based on injury that is not compensable by money, and monetary relief, on the other, which is based on injury that is compensable by money — is glaring.
Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/
Even if you understood standing (which you obviously do not) and even if a judge were to rule that you have standing (which no Federal court is going to rule) you would still lose, because your case is utterly without merit.
Since you obviously want to get Obama out of office, wouldn’t your resources be better spent by working against his re-election, instead of wasting them on a Quixotic quest to have the courts remove him from office?
Jerry Collette: “I understand standing, but I can’t stand the standing standards; I won’t stand for it, standing notwithstanding.”