Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Orly v Obama Dismissed
nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 4/16/2010 | Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth

Posted on 04/16/2010 12:06:30 PM PDT by Elderberry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORLY TAITZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 10-151 (RCL)

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is the defendant’s motion [18] to dismiss the first amended complaint and Christopher Strunk’s motion [6] to intervene. Also pending before the Court is the plaintiffs motion [17] to consolidate this case with an action currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss, the applicable law, and the entire record herein the motion will be granted for the reasons set forth below. After consideration of the motion to intervene, the opposition, the applicable law, and the entire record herein the motion will be denied for the reasons set forth below. After consideration of the motion to consolidate, the opposition, and the applicable law, the motion shall be denied without prejudice as this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.

(Excerpt) Read more at nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: article2section1; birthcertificate; birther; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; ineligible; naturalborncitizen; obama; orly; orlytaitz; taitz; usurper; whackamole
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-129 next last
To: little jeremiah
They aren’t fooling themselves that they’re being “objective”. They’re just rooting for the wrong team.

I'm not rooting for Obama, but I'm enough of a lawyer to know that no court is going to remove a sitting President, just like every court up to and including SCOTUS refused to rule on constitutional challenges to the Vietnam War.

There was a way to get a court ruling on Obama's NBC status-- another candidate on the primary or general election ballot in a state could have brought a lawsuit under state election law to take his name off the ballot. No one did, and such lawsuits must be filed before election day. The Electoral College then voted and Congress certified the results, so no court can now touch the issue.

Congress can impeach Obama, or an election law challenge can be brought by a candidate on the 2012 ballot, or the people can vote him out in 2012. Those are the only mechanisms for getting him out of office now.

51 posted on 04/16/2010 3:47:47 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
I don't think the SCOTUS will take it up either and from what I know, if the case is left to stand it would then become law.

This is an extremely dangerous decision, it means that any child born on US soil would be eligible for the highest office in the land, that is clearly not what the Founders had in mind. Appellate courts have been overturned many times, we better pray this one is.

As I mentioned in my first post to you, that would include anchor baby's, even Osama's kid.

Did you see the video of Thomas saying that the courts was deliberately evading the issue?

52 posted on 04/16/2010 3:51:02 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

courts = court


53 posted on 04/16/2010 3:55:02 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

So a “sitting president” is sort of like a God-king - “the king can do no wrong”.

I thought that one of the reasons we had the first American Revolution.


54 posted on 04/16/2010 4:00:02 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
So a “sitting president” is sort of like a God-king - “the king can do no wrong”.

No, Congress can impeach him and the people can vote him out. But nothing in the Constitution gives the courts any role in the process.

55 posted on 04/16/2010 4:04:38 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Your list proves nothing other than to suggest you enjoy not seeing any progress in this case.
Why is that?


That’s quite a silly assumption on your part. I posted the facts with no editorial comment whatsoever. I wasn’t trying to “prove” anything.
I favor a different approach and I posted the list to demonstrate what’s been happening with the current approach.

I favor using the CRIMINAL justice system not the civil system to resolve this issue. Lawsuits by individuals obviously haven’t yielded any positive results in a year and a half’s worth of attempts.

I favor a criminal investigation of Obama for forgery and fraud before a Grand Jury that could then subpoena his birth documents for examination by experts with testimony taken under oath.


56 posted on 04/16/2010 4:04:56 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
That’s quite a silly assumption on your part.

Riiiiight, that's the first time I've ever seen one of your posts on these threads.

No assumptions or editorializing needed, it speaks for its self.

57 posted on 04/16/2010 4:10:21 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

OH?I missed that one.


58 posted on 04/16/2010 4:50:42 PM PDT by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Hey, if 61 dismissed or denied lawsuits including 7 at the Supreme Court is what turns you on, far be it from me to suggest something different to you. Enjoy!


59 posted on 04/16/2010 5:58:36 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
is what turns you on, far be it from me to suggest something different to you. Enjoy!

If watching your Country be destroyed and disrupting those who are trying to stop it turns you on then get lost.

60 posted on 04/16/2010 6:04:21 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
Long ago when i was in school, we were taught about "checks and balances". In short each branch of government, executive, legislative and judicial held the other branches in check. I see now that learning this was a colossal waste of time, because along the way, this has been discarded.

Perhaps checks and balances in government haven't been discarded but that you weren't taught how they work.

61 posted on 04/16/2010 6:04:30 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Red Steel; El Gato; rxsid; BP2; LucyT
“The Court of Appeals for this Circuit has held that a quo warranto action against a public official may be brought only by the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney. Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Wright, J.) (citing United States v. Carmody, 148 F.2d 684, 685 (D.C. Cir. 1945)).”

However in Andrade it was noted that if the AG or US Attorney has a conflict of interest “equity” may come into play. In Andrade it was that the AG appointed the public official being challenged with quo warranto while with Obama, it is Obama who appointed the AG and US Attorney.

Here is Andrade link and a quote:

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/729/729.F2d.1475.82-1880.html

Applying the de facto officer doctrine would likely leave plaintiffs seeking to challenge the regularity (and, even more important, the constitutionality) of the appointment of government officers without any remedy at all and would thus render the legal norms under which appellants are proceeding unenforceable. Courts that bother to explicate the meaning of “direct” attack for purposes of the de facto officer doctrine usually state that the “direct” attack which the doctrine provides as the exclusive remedy is a quo warranto action. See, e.g., Greeting Card, 569 F.2d at 579 n. 24; Czepil v. Hershey, 425 F.2d 251, 252 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 849, 91 S.Ct. 44, 27 L.Ed.2d 87 (1970); Barrett v. Craven County Board of Education, 70 F.R.D. 466, 482-483 (E.D.N.C.1976). Quo warranto actions in federal courts seem to be governed by the provisions of 16 D.C.Code Secs. 3501-3548 (1981), see Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 551-552, 35 S.Ct. 881, 885, 59 L.Ed. 1446 (1915) (discussing predecessor of current statute); Application of James, 241 F.Supp. 858 (S.D.N.Y.1965). Yet these provisions place a series of obstacles in the path of any plaintiff. A plaintiff must first apply to the Attorney General or the United States Attorney to bring the action on his behalf in the District Court for the District of Columbia, see 16 D.C.Code Secs. 3501-3502, and these officials have broad discretion—especially in cases involving public officials, as opposed to corporate officers—to refuse to sue, see United States ex rel. Noel v. Carmody, supra, 148 F.2d at 685; Application of James, supra, 241 F.Supp. at 860. If they refuse to act, an “interested person” may petition the court for leave to have the writ issued in his own name, 16 D.C.Code Sec. 3503, but the court, too, has broad discretion to deny the writ, see Columbian Cat Fanciers, Inc. v. Koehne, 96 F.2d 529, 532 (D.C.Cir.1938). Moreover, this court has stated that actions against public officials (as opposed to actions brought against officers of private corporations) can only be instituted by the Attorney General. See United States ex rel. Noel v. Carmody, supra, 148 F.2d at 685.

65
The above procedure is cumbersome and could easily operate to deprive a plaintiff with an otherwise legitimate claim of the opportunity to have his case heard. For instance, the Attorney General was responsible for appointing appellees Diegelman and Lauer to their jobs. Requiring appellants to convince the Attorney General to file a quo warranto action on their behalf in this case would effectively bar their access to court. If appellants attempted to petition the court for leave to have the writ issued under 16 D.C.Code Sec. 3503, they would face the difficult task of persuading the court that they were “interested persons.” In feudal times, when the writ of quo warranto originated, public offices were similar to a form of property right, and a quo warranto action was like an action of ejectment, in which the only party who could bring a lawsuit was a claimant who sued to regain possession from one who was unlawfully in possession. Some courts have continued to insist that only a claimant to the defendant's office is sufficiently “interested” to bring a quo warranto action. See Columbian Cat Fanciers, Inc. v. Koehne, supra, 96 F.2d at 532; Application of James, supra, 241 F.Supp. at 859; cf. Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, supra, 238 U.S. at 544, 35 S.Ct. at 882 (quo warranto “came to be used as a means of determining which of two claimants was entitled to an office”). But cf. id. at 551, 35 S.Ct. at 885 (recognizing that “there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard”); United States ex rel. Noel v. Carmody, supra, 148 F.2d at 684-685 (in cases involving private corporations stockholder can bring quo warranto action against corporate officer even if stockholder himself does not claim office; distinguishing cases involving public officials).

66
Given these restrictions, quo warranto is an extremely difficult and uncertain remedy for the type of claim at issue in this case. This court has held that equity will not be barred from issuing an injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers if the alternative remedy of quo warranto is inadequate. Columbian Cat Fanciers, Inc. v. Koehne, supra, 96 F.2d at 532. Although that case involved a private corporation rather than public officers, it suggests the appropriate course to follow in this case: the court should avoid an interpretation of the de facto officer doctrine that would likely make it impossible for these plaintiffs to bring their assumedly substantial constitutional claim and would render legal norms concerning appointment and eligibility to hold office unenforceable.38

67
With the above considerations in mind, we hold that appellants’ action here was not necessarily barred by the de facto officer doctrine,39 for the purposes of the doctrine can be served without causing the above unfortunate results. The core purposes of the doctrine are served if a plaintiff challenging government action on the ground that the officials taking that action improperly hold office meets two requirements. First, the plaintiff must bring his action at or around the time that the challenged government action is taken. Second, the plaintiff must show that the agency or department involved has had reasonable notice under all the circumstances of the claimed defect in the official’s title to office. This does not require that the plaintiff perform any particular rituals before bringing suit, nor does it mandate that the agency's knowledge of the alleged defect must come from the plaintiff. It does, however, require that the agency or department involved actually knows of the claimed defect.

62 posted on 04/16/2010 6:06:40 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Yawn.
I’m not going anywhere. If you can’t handle it, tough.
It would probably be better for your blood pressure to simply avoid responding to my posts.


63 posted on 04/16/2010 6:25:28 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
Apparently, no American has standing and no judge has jurisdiction to question the king.

Under the Constitution, Congress has exclusive authority to remove the President from office. Just like it has exclusive authority to remove Federal Judges from office, and members of Congress from office.

The fact that Congress won't act exercise that authority in a manner pleasing to Birthers, doesn't allow them to change the Constitution.

64 posted on 04/16/2010 6:27:26 PM PDT by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Doesn't bother me at all, we all just laugh and point anyway.

The only thing that will do my BP any good would be getting bammie out, you I could care less about.

65 posted on 04/16/2010 6:29:37 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.

This is a misstatement of fact by the judge. The suits have not been an "attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen." They have been an attempt to force the man known as Obama to prove that he is constitutionally-qualified to be President.

There is a world of difference between these two things.

The judge's inaccurate construction places a burden on the people to prove something they can't prove sans the court's power to force the production of all relevant documents; documents Obama has consistently covered up, when they are easily producible by him.

The latter puts the burden where it belongs: on the office-seeker/holder to prove that he is actually constitutionally-qualified.

66 posted on 04/16/2010 6:37:51 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (No sane man loves war. But all decent men realize there can be no peace with tyrants or terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
Another Fix is in.

No. Just as a number of Freepers have tried to tell Birthers many, many, many, times, the Courts can't do what you are asking them to do.

Even if you could prove, with competent, admissible evidence, that the innuendo, supposition, and speculation, that Birthers recite as facts, are indeed factually correct, the Courts don't have the power to remove the President from office, for any reason. So the courts will not waste time searching for facts that the tribunal that can remove the President from office, Congress, might use to do just that.

You want Obama out of office? Get to work and elect members of Congress who want him out of office.

67 posted on 04/16/2010 6:41:54 PM PDT by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Doesn’t bother me at all, we all just laugh and point anyway.
The only thing that will do my BP any good would be getting bammie out, you I could care less about.


That works for me! See ya.


68 posted on 04/16/2010 6:59:52 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

So if only Biden, the AG or the US Attorney have “standing”, what remedy is there for Quo Warranto? Nothing? End of line?


69 posted on 04/16/2010 7:19:35 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: browardchad

Help me out here. How is it that Taitz represented Alan Keyes et all. Who is assisting and behind her efforts. Does anyone know? Are others using her as a front b/c no one wants to do it? I”m just confused why someone like Alan Keyes would let her represent him given the incompetence factor that some think she has? Last question I promise...What has become of Berg’s cases and does anyone have a list of cases pending or have all been rejected by the courts?


70 posted on 04/16/2010 7:19:54 PM PDT by awin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp; All

Courts that bother to explicate the meaning of “direct” attack for purposes of the de facto officer doctrine usually state that the “direct” attack which the doctrine provides as the exclusive remedy is a quo warranto action.

Yep, that's just as I said yesterday on a different thread.

The “de facto officer doctrine” is a relatively modern concept created for the convenience and stability of government if for some reason one of their officials is found to be illegitimate. If he is found to be illegitimate and not duly qualified for that office, all of his actions still remain intact ... with the important caveat that the officer MUST have acted in “good faith”. If his authority was derived and applied via fraud, i.e., falsified employment qualifications, then all bets are off.

Regardless, similar to the Book of Narnia where the Old Law trumps the law, quo warranto trumps the “de facto officer doctrine”. Again, it literally means, "by what warrant" do you hold your office?

The writ of quo warranto first came into prominence in early medieval times, when it was a successful weapon in the hands of Norman Kings for curbing the power of the strong feudal barons. It was inevitable that the action of the king, in requiring all claimants of royal privileges to abandon their claims -or- substantiate them with documentary evidence, should create discontent, but it was not to be denied that such action was proper on the theory of the king's lawyers that every franchise presumed a grant from the crown.

It is clear that quo warranto was originally intended solely as a royal weapon, but later it seems to have developed that a private individual could make use of the writ by informing the proper royal officials to PROVE that they legitimately posses the RIGHT of the status and power they wield as a ruler.


So, once quo warranto is applied in the proper Jurisdiction of the District of Columbia with a well-qualified plaintiff with legal Standing, it should an effective tool to Discover if Obama is IN FACT Eligible for the office he holds.


71 posted on 04/16/2010 7:59:51 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: browardchad

Well we’re waiting. Since you have such a handle on it why not file and do it right? Some body needs to do it.


72 posted on 04/16/2010 9:26:13 PM PDT by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or ...off..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; BP2; El Gato; Red Steel
I don't think it is so clear that only the AG or US Attorney can bring a quo warranto against Obama. An exception for the court to act if quo warranto was inadequate to protect “equity” was carved out in the cited case for situations where the AG and/or US Attorney has a conflict of interest just as with Obama. I seem to remember Leo Donofrio being aware of this cases and discussing how there was an opportunity for an injured non-candidate “interested party” (like Lakin, for example and the Chrysler dealers) to ask the court to allow quo warranto.

The DC Court of Appeals said “This court has held that equity will not be barred from issuing an injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers if the alternative remedy of quo warranto is inadequate.”

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the word "equity" in this quote is a specific legal term of art meaning the following:

"The principles of justice used to correct or supplement the law as applied to particular circumstances. For example the judge decided the case by equity because the statute did not fully address the issue. In this sense it is also termed natural equity"

http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/equity/

I think the point the DC Appeals Court was making is that it would be unjust to require an injured interested party to make a quo warranto demand on a public official only from AG or US Attorney if the AG and US Attorney have a conflict of interest. This would create the possibility of an "equity exception" to the ruling of this same appeals court that all quo warranto demands must go through the AG or US Attorney. Such an equity exception would allow the court to go around the AG and US Attorney to grant quo warranto to an interested party with standing.

Here is some of the context that preceded this quote from the passages I posted earlier in this thread:

“For instance, the Attorney General was responsible for appointing appellees Diegelman and Lauer to their jobs. Requiring appellants to convince the Attorney General to file a quo warranto action on their behalf in this case would effectively bar their access to court. If appellants attempted to petition the court for leave to have the writ issued under 16 D.C.Code Sec. 3503, they would face the difficult task of persuading the court that they were “interested persons.” In feudal times, when the writ of quo warranto originated, public offices were similar to a form of property right, and a quo warranto action was like an action of ejectment, in which the only party who could bring a lawsuit was a claimant who sued to regain possession from one who was unlawfully in possession. Some courts have continued to insist that only a claimant to the defendant's office is sufficiently “interested” to bring a quo warranto action.”

“Given these restrictions, quo warranto is an extremely difficult and uncertain remedy for the type of claim at issue in this case. This court has held that equity will not be barred from issuing an injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers if the alternative remedy of quo warranto is inadequate.”

73 posted on 04/16/2010 9:48:10 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: awin

“Who is assisting and behind her efforts. Does anyone know? Are others using her as a front b/c no one wants to do it? “

I have been trying to answer that question. It looks like Gary Kreep first brought her into the courtroom. Before that, she seemed to just do medical malpractice legal work for her own dental practice. FWIW, she also got a real estate license so she could save the commission on a house sale.

I have suspicions about who is behind it, but I can not find proof. Let’s just say its somebody who has a history of doing smear work and whose associate is located in Laguna Niguel. Maybe one day Orly will tell all.

parsy, who has vibes and zero proof


74 posted on 04/16/2010 9:57:43 PM PDT by parsifal (Woe to those who foster stupidity for their own sake, for they shall be drawn and quartered - WEIG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Perhaps a quo warranto suit could be brought up by a different party then.

Like these chaps: http://www.texascherokeenation.org/

75 posted on 04/16/2010 10:04:51 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Bunch of quitters


76 posted on 04/16/2010 10:14:38 PM PDT by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or ...off..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: awin
does anyone have a list of cases pending or have all been rejected by the courts?

I don't know who put together this list but it's updated pretty regularly:

Birther Scorecard

77 posted on 04/16/2010 10:17:45 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

I think “pitchfork and torches” time is getting closer and closer. Then maybe courts, judges and congresscritters will start to realize something needs to be done about the usurper.


78 posted on 04/16/2010 10:23:41 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Thank you.

Who in the eyes of the court, then, could possibly be an injured interested party? That seems to be the difficulty (legal dancing on heads of pins, I think there millions of injured in reality).


79 posted on 04/16/2010 10:34:23 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

You might say that about somebody else. I was
never a fan of his.


80 posted on 04/16/2010 10:45:49 PM PDT by Gaffer ("Profling: The only profile I need is a chalk outline around their dead ass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; BP2
“Who in the eyes of the court, then, could possibly be an injured interested party?”

By injured interested party I was using shorthand for a party with “standing” to bring quo warranto which would still include:

1. McCain and Palin plus the minor national party candidates like Keyes who lost the election would be perfect because they can claim to have been personally displaced by Obama and Biden. This would not be the same case that Keyes and Taitz lost in CA because it would have to be brought in the DC District Court.

2. Persons personally injured by an action taken by Obama’s administration. This would be a “but for” injury. But for the fact that Obama usurped the presidency as an ineligible candidate, he would not have been able to have nationalized Chrysler and his Car Czar would not have shut down hundreds of dealers who now have quo warranto standing to demand that Obama prove his eligibility.

Also, but for Obama’s ineligible usurpation he would not have been CIC and would not have issued orders to LTC Lakin, which Lakin could not in good conscience obey under his oath to defend the Constitution.

Lamberth said that the appeals court over him said all quo warranto demands against public officials (including Obama, as Lamberth didn't exclude him) must go through the AG or US Attorney. But as I pointed out, when you read the case Lamberth cited, Andrade, the DC Appeals Court said that “equity” would allow the court to bypass the AG and US Attorney if they had a conflict of interest. Lamberth didn't reach that issue because Taitz clearly lacked standing as an interested party under the quo warranto statute.

Well, Lamberth almost had to consider granting standing to Taitz as a party injured by Obamacare, as she tried to claim at the last minute, but Obama hadn't signed the bill when the case reached the judge, to he got to dodge that claim of injury by Taitz. The judge's scramble to correctly prevent a claim of injury caused by Obamacare may show the way for millions of parties injured by Obamacare to file quo warranto claims!

All of this points up the fact that Taitz, for all of her bumbling and mangling of the statutes and procedures has blazed a trail for more competent, experienced attorneys by getting yet another federal judge on the record revealing the defenses that must be breached to prove Obama’s ineligibility.

81 posted on 04/16/2010 11:09:01 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Thank you very much for your clear explanation. My feeble non-legal mind much appreciates it.


82 posted on 04/16/2010 11:13:55 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

obumpa


83 posted on 04/17/2010 2:35:23 AM PDT by Dajjal (Justice Robert Jackson was wrong -- the Constitution IS a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

The distinction between core and penumbra is associated with the work of H.L.A. Hart. See H.L.A.
HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1997).

can you find this? it is referenced to:

“What is the legal significance of what we can call “the natural born citizen clause”?

“Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States of American is a “natural born
citizen.”

Illinois Public Law and Legal Theory
Research Papers Series No. 08-17
September 5, 2008
Originalism and the Natural
Born Citizen Clause

Lawrence B. Solum*

*John E. Cribbet Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law

This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network
Electronic Paper Collection:

http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1263885


84 posted on 04/17/2010 2:40:19 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

“if the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney “refuse to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued.” Id. § 16-3503. Ms. Taitz, having contacted the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and the Attorney General of the United States, and not having received an answer to her satisfaction, has elected to seek the writ on her own. Shortly after she filed suit, the government moved to dismiss.”

She should have applied for leave to issue the writ, instead she went ahead and issued it without leave. Simple procedural error. Now apply for leave. If the Judge doesn’t grant it, apply Misprision of felony/treason to him.


85 posted on 04/17/2010 5:05:17 AM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
Simple procedural error.

That seems to sum up all of Orly's legal antics in a nutshell.

86 posted on 04/17/2010 5:29:33 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

At least she is doing the work, and she is getting closer each time.

Doesn’t change the fact that Obamas days in illegal office are shortening.


87 posted on 04/17/2010 8:48:44 AM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/293017-1


88 posted on 04/17/2010 8:51:58 AM PDT by bitt ("WE THE PEOPLE" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt

Obamas local Law College forget to mention Vattel in a handy late 2008 dogs breakfast of an opinion.


89 posted on 04/17/2010 9:14:33 AM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
At least she is doing the work, and she is getting closer each time.

Is it possible for one to get closer to complete failure? :D

90 posted on 04/17/2010 10:05:17 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Tesibria maintains that list.
http://twitter.com/tesibria


91 posted on 04/17/2010 10:09:07 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

You “know” it, but the courts do not. That is why you keep losing...you need to read what they say.


92 posted on 04/17/2010 10:14:05 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

“All of this points up the fact that Taitz, for all of her bumbling and mangling of the statutes and procedures has blazed a trail for more competent, experienced attorneys by getting yet another federal judge on the record revealing the defenses that must be breached to prove Obama’s ineligibility.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


93 posted on 04/17/2010 10:15:43 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
I don't think it is so clear that only the AG or US Attorney can bring a quo warranto against Obama.

On the contrary, the court has been clear in stating that an interested party may, when granted permission, institute quo warranto proceedings in the name of the United States. Orly was refused permission. Thank goodness.

For your reference, here are the links to Donofrio's three-part legal brief on Quo Warranto and a couple of relevant excerpts. Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.

The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application ...

In Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 at 546 (1915), the Supreme Court interpreted the role of the AG and US attorney as follows:

The District Code still treats usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. It permits those proceedings to be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the attorney for the District of Columbia. By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper. But there are so many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office that the Code not only does not authorize a private citizen, on his own motion, to attack the incumbent’s title, but it throws obstacles in the way of all such private attacks. It recognizes, however, that there might be instances in which it would be proper to allow such proceedings to be instituted by a third person, but it provides that such “third person” must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the consent of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia before he can use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings.


94 posted on 04/17/2010 10:48:39 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
it provides that such “third person” must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the consent of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia before he can use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings.

Taitz didn't get the consent of the relevant law officers of the government, and she didn't even make an effort to get the consent of the Supreme Court of DC before she filed.

95 posted on 04/17/2010 11:16:14 AM PDT by browardchad ("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact." - Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: browardchad

Yep. She’s an incompetent, attention whore, with schizophrenic tendencies. As I’ve said before, she couldn’t properly file her paperwork or interpret a judicial ruling if Chief Justice Roberts himself explained everything to her word for word in Russian.


96 posted on 04/17/2010 11:27:21 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
At least she is doing the work, and she is getting closer each time.

Getting closer each time? Orly Taitz? ROTFLMAO!!!!

97 posted on 04/17/2010 12:54:12 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
Obamas local Law College forget to mention Vattel in a handy late 2008 dogs breakfast of an opinion.

Can you translate that into American please?

98 posted on 04/17/2010 12:59:39 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary; BuckeyeTexan; BP2; El Gato; Red Steel; LucyT; little jeremiah
“She should have applied for leave to issue the writ, instead she went ahead and issued it without leave. Simple procedural error.”

Here, yet again, while failing to gain standing, Taitz has elicited from a second federal district court judge a clear procedural path forward for a quo warranto eligibility challenge by an “interested party” who meets criteria for standing, criteria which Lamberth also further clarified with citations.

In addition, in a crucial victory for eligibility challengers and a defeat for the DOJ, Lamberth refused to affirm the DOJ contention that a sitting POTUS is immune from quo warranto attack.

Specifically Lamberth, like Carter, refused to affirm the DOJ contention in their MTD that it would be a violation of separation of powers for the courts to permit quo warranto.

Taitz has also elicited from Lamberth a non-affirmation of the DOJ contention that eligibility of the POTUS was inherently a “political question” exclusively reserved in the Constitution to non-judicial actors in the electoral process and the Congress.

Taitz elicited from Lamberth his citation of Andrade which explicitly points to an "equity" exception to the exclusive power of the AG or US Attorney to bring quo waranto against a public official when the AG or US Attorney have a conflict of interest regarding the public official whose credentials are being challenged.

For all of these reasons, this dismissal is a big victory for eligibility challengers because a second federal judge (this time in the relevant DC Circuit) has preserved quo warranto as a vector of attack against a sitting president!

Without this imperfect (OK terribly flawed) action by Taitz, this line of defense by Obama and the DOJ (claiming that quo warranto could never be be brought against a sitting PUTUS) would not have been breached. LTC Lakin, Keyes, Donofrio's Chrysler Dealers or now lots of plaintiffs injured by Obamacare may well be able to make use of this breach in the Obama defenses.

99 posted on 04/17/2010 12:59:50 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Thank you for the explanation.


100 posted on 04/17/2010 1:28:56 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-129 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson