Rate President Obama A, B, C, D, F (168)

oh please. dont post a youtube video and say it is the truth.

here it is








and this from the actual court document of the unfounded lawsuit


.C. § 1343; and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff cites no authority under which any of these
statutes would confer standing on him to bring his Natural Born Citizen Clause claim and we are
aware of none. We therefore find that Plaintiff’s attempt to use these statutes to gain standing to
pursue his Natural Born Citizen Clause claim are frivolous and not worthy of discussion.
Plaintiff avers violations of some of these statutes as freestanding causes of action in the
Amended Complaint. We address the merit of those causes of action below


The irreducible basis of all Plaintiff’s alleged violations is that Obama might be elected to
the Office of President despite being constitutionally ineligible under the Natural Born Citizen
Clause. This alleged fact underscores his claim that he has been deprived of money and billable
hours, his claim that he has been insulted in public, his claim that he is being deprived of a
chance to vote for an eligible candidate, his claim that he will be deprived of life, liberty and
property, and his claim that the non-Obama Defendants are causing him harm by not stopping
Obama. The question, therefore, is straightforward: Does the Natural Born Citizen Clause create14
State action is also a necessary element of a § 1983 claim. See Mark v. Borough of
Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141-45 (3d Cir. 1994) (discussing state action requirement). While we
do not need to reach this question because Plaintiff does not allege the violation of any legally
protected right, we note that he would likely have difficulty showing that either Obama or the
DNC are state actors or acting under color of law. We have found no cases where a presidential
candidate has been treated as a state actor merely for running for office. To the contrary, the few
cases that we have found suggest that presidential candidates are not state actors or engaged in
state action for purposes of § 1983. See, e.g., Fulani v. McAulif e, No. 04-6973, 2005 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 20400, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2005) (dismissing § 1983 claim against defendants,
including the DNC and 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, because they were not “acting
under color of state law”); Riches v. Giambi, No. 07-0623, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53123, at *20
20
a federal right the violation of which results in a cognizable § 1983 claim? We think not