Election fraud? Sorry, vote's over

The Obama misery could have been avoided altogether if he had simply been vetted either by the media looking at his past or officials verifying his eligibility.

Court rules inauguration cancels 'standing' in Obama case

---

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

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.

The case represents the work of two groups of plaintiffs, one led by lawyer Orly Taitz and the other by attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

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.

Get Jerome Corsi's "Where's the Real Birth Certificate?"

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.

(Story continues below)

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.

Read more: Election fraud? Sorry, vote's over http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=380197#ixzz1hPlp84Fn