Judge Dismisses Birther's Lawsuit; Mo. Reps. Cynthia Davis, Timothy Jones Lose Decision


Cynthia Davis
  • Cynthia Davis
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought on by some 40 "birther" conspiracy-theorist (including two Missouri state representatives) who believe Barack Obama was born overseas and therefore should be ineligible to serve as president of the U.S.

The Missouri reps are Cynthia Davis (R-O'Fallon), who made headlines back in July for suggesting that hunger can be a "powerful motivator" and that the poor should get jobs at McDonald's where they could get free or reduced-price meals, and Tim Jones (R-Eureka).

Timothy Jones
  • Timothy Jones
Today Judge David O. Carter in the Central District of California (where the case was filed) dismissed the claims against the defendants, including Obama, vice-president Joe Biden and other federal officials.

Stated the judge:
Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office.
The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by We the People‚ sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
The judge also called into question the involvement of state representatives Davis and Jones as parties to the lawsuit.

Continued Judge Carter:
The Complaint additionally identifies a group of "Plaintiff State Representatives" as having "unique standing." While the Complaint does not specifically identify these representatives serving in the state government, from the caption of the Complaint it appears they are Tennessee Representative Glen Casada; New Hampshire Representative Timothy Comerford; Missouri Representative Cynthia Davis; Missouri Representative Timothy Jones; Tennessee Representative Frank Niceley; and Tennessee Representative Eric Swafford (collectively, the "State Representatives")...

In effect, Plaintiffs allege that the State Representatives have standing because they could be held liable for theft or conversion should they accept federal funds pursuant to an unconstitutionally elected president. The threat of liability for theft or conversion against these representatives is highly speculative.... The State Representatives' liability for theft or conversion is speculative because it takes multiple logical leaps to assume that the representatives would be prosecuted criminally for theft and conversion for taking funds from the President who has been elected and sworn into office. Because the alleged harm faced by the State Representatives is highly speculative and conjectural, this group also fails to satisfy the standing requirements. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiffs allege State Representatives have standing based on an oath to uphold the Constitution, the allegation is insufficient to establish standing under the reasoning of City of South Lake Tahoe...
View the entire court order here.


Riverfront Times works for you, and your support is essential.

Our small but mighty local team works tirelessly to bring you high-quality, uncensored news and cultural coverage of St. Louis and beyond.

Unlike many newspapers, ours is free – and we'd like to keep it that way, because we believe, now more than ever, everyone deserves access to accurate, independent coverage of their community.

Whether it's a one-time acknowledgement of this article or an ongoing pledge, your support helps keep St. Louis' true free press free.