A little over three years ago on April 4, 2008 in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, I filed a lawsuit naming Hillary Rodham Clinton candidate for President of the United States; Ross Miller Secretary of State for Nevada and the Nevada State Democratic Party as defendants.
The purpose for the lawsuit was to attempt to clean up the Constitution of the United States relating to gender generalizations to allow a female to reside in the White House as President of the United States.
The lawsuit # CV08 00866 Reno, NV sought to bar Ross Miller the Secretary of State of Nevada from allowing the name of Hillary Clinton on the Nevada Ballot during the 2008 November general elections based upon the issue that Article II of the Constitution of the United States was gender specific, referencing only a male as holding the office of President.
I asserted that the Constitution as crafted by the Framers was gender specific in which the pronouns of "he" and "his" were used a total of nineteen times. Nowhere is there a reference to a female gendered person by the use of the pronouns "she" or "her."
I alleged that the Framers had no intent or consideration that a woman was a qualified candidate for office of President and that the language "person" was gender specific. I alleged that defendant Clinton was attempting an "end run" around the Constitution.
I further alleged that either [A] the Constitution needed an amendment approved by the Congress and ratified by the states, or [B] the US Supreme Court needed to resolve the issue by a Constitutional order which would end the issue of gender specificity. To date that has not occurred.
I asserted that it was axiomatic that laws may not be changed simply by non-adjudicated challenge or by an overburden of violations attempting to set unlawful precedents, thereby weakening or rendering laws or the Constitution less meaningful by clouding and reducing their impact upon society which is ruled by law.
It has been mistakenly presumed that the Nineteenth Amendment granting the right for women suffrage also silently gave a woman the right to be President.
I had asked the court to declare that defendant Clinton be ruled ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States, or that in the alternative issue a Writ of Quo Warranto requiring her to prove to the court the constitutionality of her quest to seek and occupy the office of President.
It turned out that
1. Defendant Clinton was not served at her political address in Las Vegas; that the server found only vacant offices at 1055 E. Tropicana Ave. #'s 425 and 530. However the lawsuit was nationally published by the media and at a minimum, Defendant Clinton had knowledge of its filing.
2. Secretary of State Ross Miller was timely served and
Nevada State Democratic Party was timely served.
Since Clinton had not been served within the 20 day period she was not duty bound to respond to the complaint until 20 days of service should she have been served.
The State Democratic Party failed to respond and could have been found in default.
Ross Miller through the office of the Attorney General of Nevada belatedly
responded outside of the 20 day notice to appear.
1 | 2