Class Action Suit Against Congressional Leaders for Misuse of Funds
Posted by By GeorgeM at 27 August, at 14 : 54 PM Print
We haven’t vetted this. Just presenting it for your examination.
The opportunity exists for those of us who choose to make a difference. All it will take is a fax or hard copy letter to Sally Baptiste, (FAX (407) 208-9350) confirming your desire to join a class action suit against the defendants as listed in the action below. Please include your name, complete address and a phone number.
1-MS-U.S. Congress Breach of Fiduciary Duties Compliant Filed 08152012
Send Sally an e-mail and request the address to which the hard copy version should be addressed, should you prefer to exercise this option. This is a time sensitive matter so you are urged to do so upon receipt of this message.
A fax or hard copy letter makes the intent of our action more serious and convincing to those within the judicial system to which these charges will be filed.
Time is of the essence. If we are to make our voices heard, the time to act is NOW! We need a minimum of at least 100 additional plaintiffs in order to initiate a class-action suit.
Arnie
Available 24/7 – Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
arnie@arnierosner.com
714-964-4056
714-501-8247 – mobile
source:
http://scannedretina.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/enabling-you-to-fight-the-system/
I don’t know what you mean by “vetted” but the first problem I see is that all the plaintiffs are pro se. A pro se litigant may not act as a class representative in a class action lawsuit and therefore a pro se litigant may not bring a class action.
Frank Bolivar, 8 months ago
Thank you, by asking people to join us in this suit, can bring up the number of plaintiffs. The Court will then see that there are a lot more than 3 Plaintiffs, and that should give us stature.
CHARLES KLEIN, 8 months ago
Mr. Klein: That not how class action suits work. And as I stated above pro se litigants can neither represent a class nor bring a class action suit. It doesn’t matter how many pro se parties you have, that still holds true.
And just because you have a long list of parties plaintiff that does not constitute a class.
Frank Bolivar, 8 months ago
True, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t a class, either. They would have to establish that a class exists, by defining it and maybe attempting to quantify it. I’ve noted the lack of eligibility class action suits, so you may well be correct. Of course, the phony judicial construction that the harm must be “unique” would inherently exclude classes of plaintiffs, right Obot?
GeorgeM, 8 months ago
As to the many other problems with this submission you can read of many of them here…
http://www.scribd.com/doc/104082656/Fl-Klein-Et-Al-v-Reid-Et-Al-2012-08-20-Magistrate-Recommondation
Frank Bolivar, 8 months ago
Thank You, we know that there are problems with the submission, however, we can MOtion for Re-consideration and we can Motion for Continuance. This should give us time to correct the submissions.
CHARLES KLEIN, 8 months ago
Respectfully, Mr. Klein, you are certainly welcome to file whatever you wish, but this case will be (properly) dismissed. You have not established standing, and even if you could overcome that hurdle, the court does not have jurisdiction. You have not stated a claim upon which the court can grant releif, and in this instance you can not do so.
You’ve also not met the very basic rudimentary requirements of filing a class action, as previously stated.
Frank Bolivar, 8 months ago
No standing. Funny, Obot. You buy in to the illegal tactics used to claim that U.S. citizens have no standing, even to challenge a ballot that they have a huge stake in, even to enforce the Law that a President MUST be eligible. Now, you don’t think they have standing even though their money is being misspent by an illegal, America-hating usurper. You’re a piece of work, but the corrupt courts may well agree with you. It’s amazing how your ideology allows you and officials to twist the law like a pretzel.
GeorgeM, 8 months ago
I don’t make the laws, George, but I know what they are. In nearly every lawsuit that was filed standing was the initial problem. If the plaintiffs had been able to get over the standing hurdle, there were further problems with jurisdiction. Beyond that there were problems with having a basis in law and/or fact for the suits.
As to the recent ballot challenges, in most (I don’t remember if all or not) standing was not the problem. The problem was they had no basis in law. In other words, the law was 100% against their assertions. Of all the ones I know of which are still pending, that is still the case.
I’ve said nothing except what happens to be fact. The answer to most of the problems with the lawsuits and ballot challenges is that if one wishes the outcome to be different the laws need to be changed.
As to standing, it’s not some made-up technicality. It is a basic tenet of American jurisprudence.
As to a “hearing” or “ruling” on the merits, some wrongly assert that that requires a full-blown trial. That is not the case. A ruling on standing or jurisdiction is a ruling on the merits of a case.
I have no problem at all if Mr. Keith and others want to try to bring this “class action” suit. In its present form it will not happen. It is a fact that pro se litigants can neither represent a class not can they bring a class action suit. That has nothing to do with being a “birther” or “obot”, it’s just very simply a fact.
There’s no twisting of the law here, merely explaining what it is as opposed to what one wishes it to be or what it should be.
You’ll probably be surprised to hear this but, since 2008 there is nothing I’d like better than for one of these eligibility cases to be “tried”, go through the full litigation process, and go right up through the Supreme Court.
The suit Mr. Klein is proposing to bring will fail, for all the reasons set forth in the Magistrate’s recommendation, and likely more, but those will suffice. That’s not anything to do with being an “obot” it’s it’s the law and it’s fact.
The answer is and always has been in Congress.
Frank Bolivar, 8 months ago
There’s no legal reason that it can’t be heard by the courts. It is a CONSTITUTIONAL issue, not a “political issue,” in spite of the drivel spouted at the 9th Circus Court by Atty West, there on our nickel from the Justice Dept., defending Obama, when he should instead have been prosecuting him. I was there at the Santa Ana hearings and the Pasadena appeal, heard it and duly reported on it. Everything has been turned upside down.
There are also significant differences in standing criteria for eligibility challenges, ballot challenges and the proposed class action suit. It would make sense for them to have counsel, of course.
2. You seem to be intelligent and knowledgeable, but highly biased. Too bad you don’t put your talents to use for the good of the country to get Obamanation out. I suppose you would say I am biased too. Of course, I don’t want a Marxist, America-hating usurper in charge in the White House, but that’s what Article II Section I Clause 5 was put in the Constitution to prevent. Too bad we don’t use that tool. The mental gymnastics that officials have gone through to avoid following the law are amazing.
Frank, I have studied the NH, GA, NJ, FL, CA and some other challenges and solicited legal advice on them, promoted the cases, etc. It is obvious that they are ducking the law. For example, the first one in NH the Ballot Law Commission point blank ignored their own eligibility law and insisted that all a candidate had to do was file the papers and pay $1000. It was shocking to know the law, then witness this farce hearing. That is blatantly untrue. The NH Ballot Law Commission was illegally constituted and some members committed illegal acts in office. The AG willfully ignored documented evidence and statement of the law, which was well-presented by Attorney Taitz and didn’t act. All appeals were ignored. Ditto the others. We could spend may hours arguing the specifics of the cases, I’m sure, but would get nowhere.
The American people will have to decide in November and hopefully end this tragic episode in American history. In teh meantime. we’ll do everything we can to get the word out to the American public and also keep the option open for future actions.
GeorgeM, 8 months ago
Sad to say, but We The People have been reduced to feudal slaves. We cannot address the many many blatent acts of criminality coming out of DC as court after court tells us we do not have standing. Well, I guess the right to petition the government for redress of grievances according to the Constitution is not applicable in ANY case according to these scumbag judges. Nuff said!
FedupwDC, 8 months ago
If, “We the People” cannot sue Congress, then there are some suits that will have to be recinded. The Constitution is for the protection of the people. So, it is up to the People to take whatever action is necessary to restore the People’s Rights and Freedoms.
A Court can do what the voters can’t or won’t do.
There are laws that make it possible for “We the People’ to sue.
CHARLES KLEIN, 8 months ago
“2. You seem to be intelligent and knowledgeable, but highly biased.”
George, don’t confuse providing correct legal analysis with bias. It has nothing to do with bias to correctly state the law and procedure. It is what it is, not what one wishes it to be or what one thinks it should be.
That said, thanks for the civil tone and allowing me to occasionally play in your sandbox.
Frank Bolivar, 8 months ago
Yes, it is mutually beneficial to exchange views and info. Most Obots are not nearly as civil or informed as you are, Frank.
GeorgeM, 8 months ago
But, I’m not confusing bias and legal analysis. You consistently are biased in favor of the Obama position.
GeorgeM, 8 months ago