Thursday, at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals [pdf]:
DEC 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN
[….] Representative CYNTHIA DAVIS, Missouri [….] State Representative TIMOTHY
JONES, Esq., Missouri [….]
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA; MICHELLE L.R. OBAMA; HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, Secretary of State; ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary of Defense; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Vice President and President of the Senate [….]
Defendants – Appellees.
Appellate cases are always an interesting read because there’s usually a succinct summary of what’s what:
Plaintiffs-Appellants contend that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States. United States District Court Judge David O. Carter dismissed Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, as well as their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, for lack of standing. We affirm the dismissal for lack of standing, albeit on somewhat different reasoning than that of the District Court.
Well, that was short and to the point.
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS: STANDING
3. State Representatives
Plaintiffs allege that state representatives have “unique standing” because they have a “special non-delegable constitutional right and responsibility to verify the qualifications of the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America who is responsible for allocating large sums of [federal] funds, since receipt of funds from any officer without legal authority would be complicity in theft or conversion.”
In South Lake Tahoe, we rejected as insufficient to establish standing a similar contention that a public official could conceivably be exposed to civil liability while carrying out his official duties. 625 F.2d at 238-39. We noted that whether the officials could in fact be subject to civil liability was dependent on “multiple contingencies,” including the likelihood of any civil suit and the question whether the official would be immune from any such suit. Id. at 239. The alleged harm to the state representatives in this case is just as speculative and conjectural as in South Lake Tahoe, for similar reasons. This group of plaintiffs therefore fails to establish standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.
[footnote] 6 Plaintiffs never filed a motion for leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint and only mentioned in passing such a request in their motion for reconsideration, filed on November 9, 2009, after the District Court granted
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. [end footnote]
…noting that Plaintiffs had six months between the original complaint and the amended complaint to attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations. The District Court found Plaintiffs’ “failure to do so inexcusable.”
The District Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims for lack of Article III standing. Moreover, the District Court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ quo warranto, FOIA, or RICO claims. Accordingly, the dismissal by the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Appellants’ emergency petition for writ of mandamus, filed November 8, 2011, is DENIED.
Gary G. Kreep, Ramona, California, and Orly Taitz, Rancho Santa Margarita, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
[emphasis in original]
That reads a might testy.
It’s gonna be really interesting when Speker Elect Jones (r) takes over.