Liberty Legal Foundation Responds to Unnecessary Criticism of Their Eligibility Lawsuit by Attorney Orly Taitz
Orly Taitz’s blog criticizing our Class Action against the Democratic Party. I applaud all efforts to get to the truth of this issue and would never publically discourage anyone working toward the same goals, as she did. It is highly counterproductive for those seeking the same outcome to disagree publically over details, however I must correct the misrepresentations she made regarding our action and our Plaintiffs. Orly’s message reflects that she did not read the complaints that we filed. Her message reflects her assumptions as opposed to what we are actually doing. She misrepresents who the plaintiffs and defendants are. Talking about standing requires knowing who the parties are, what the causes of action are, and what relief is requested. She made erroneous assumptions, then libeled us based upon her erroneous assumptions.
Her conclusions are also wrong for several reasons. First, we have other FEC-registered candidates as class members that are running as independents. Therefore they will be part of the general election.
Second, she mistakenly assumes that standing requires a plaintiff to be in exactly the same position as a defendant. In this case she claims that only a candidate on the ballot in the general election will have standing. This is simply wrong. Standing requires a plaintiff to show that they will be harmed, in a particular way that is not speculative. Any candidate running in the election will be less likely to win if their opponent appears on the ballot. This is true whether the plaintiff appears on the ballot or not. This harm is not speculative, it is certain. She mistakenly equates the speculative nature of winning an election with the certain nature of the harm. The harm of lowering a candidates chances of winning is certain. Courts cannot simply conclude that a candidate has no chance of winning without throwing out the entire purpose of holding democratic elections.
Third, Orly assumes that standing can be disproven simply because many plaintiffs have standing. This is also wrong. Standing is proven if a plaintiff can show that he will be harmed. This analysis doesn’t require the harm to be limited to a small number of people. Courts don’t like standing that any citizen can assert, but 250 FEC-registered Presidential candidates is not the same as 330 million American taxpayers. By Orly’s argument, her military members didn’t have standing because there are “too many” members of the military. Such an argument runs contrary to her own assertions.
Fourth, different courts rule very differently on standing depending upon the specific circumstances. Since no court has ruled on exactly these facts, especially with a class of FEC-registered candidates with different circumstances, to dismiss our case out of hand without even reading the complaint puts Orly in the same category as the corrupt judges that she complains about in her blog. I agree that the courts are corrupt, but that is no excuse to treat others that are striving for the same goals as poorly as the corrupt courts have treated Orly. She owes us an apology.
Fifth, Orly states that filing this as a class action has no purpose. This is also wrong. As mentioned above, by filing this as a class action we end up with more plaintiffs which leads to more individual circumstances likely to have standing. Any specific facts that the defendants or the court claim to be “good enough” for standing will likely be met by SOMEONE in our class action. If only one plaintiff has standing, ALL the others get to proceed. Rather than taking the time to consider this, or better yet, ask, Orly simply makes another incorrect assumption and blogs to the world. Also, by filing our case as a class action we give voice to all of the disenfranchised people that want to be represented. Finally, any judge seeing 30,000+ plaintiffs is less likely to simply dismiss their complaints. None of these reasons were perceived by Orly. Nor did she ask. Again, she owes us an apology.
I’ve respected her work on this issue to date. We certainly learned a lot from her valiant efforts. I am disappointed that she choose to defame our efforts rather than discuss her concerns with us directly. All of our legal filings are posted on our website. Our strategy is outlined clearly. Please go to www.libertylegalfoundation.net and decide for yourself if you believe our cases have merit.
Liberty Legal Foundation
Liberty Legal Foundation, et al. v Democratic National Committee - Obama Eligibility Complaint - Federal
Liberty Legal Foundation, et al. v Democratic National Committee - Obama Eligibility Complaint - TN
Obama's SSN Fails E-Verify System - 17 Oct 2011 Wash Times National Wkly edition - pg 5