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 1-5051-100101-129 next last
Another one bites the dust.
1 posted on 04/16/2010 12:06:30 PM PDT by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

Another Fix is in.


2 posted on 04/16/2010 12:07:06 PM PDT by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
"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."

"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."

Those two statements would seem to be at odds with one another.

3 posted on 04/16/2010 12:10:48 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
Those two statements would seem to be at odds with one another.

No-- the statement about tilting at windmills was made about the eligibility claim, which the court dismissed. The statement about no jurisdiction was made about Orly's request that she be allowed to join the suit challenging the health care act, which the court couldn't rule on because that suit is pending in Florida.

4 posted on 04/16/2010 12:17:47 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

I wonder if the rat bastards at this kangaroo court decided based on obama’s promises and a newspaper clipping like that stupid @sshole Bill O’reilly.


5 posted on 04/16/2010 12:18:30 PM PDT by Prole (Please pray for the families of Chris and Channon. May God always watch over them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Lamberth, Royce C.
Born 1943 in San Antonio, TX

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on March 19, 1987, to a seat vacated by Barrington D. Parker, Sr.; Confirmed by the Senate on November 13, 1987, and received commission on November 16, 1987. Served as chief judge, 2008-present.

Education:
University of Texas, B.A., 1965
University of Texas School of Law, LL.B., 1967

Professional Career:
U.S. Army Captain, JAG Corps, 1967-1974
U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Columbia, 1974-1987
Assistant U.S. attorney, Civil Division, 1974-1977
Assistant chief, Civil Division, 1977-1978
Chief, Civil Division, 1978-1987

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male


6 posted on 04/16/2010 12:19:17 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
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.

This is how dictators rise to power.

7 posted on 04/16/2010 12:20:32 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (The 0bama regime represents an "Clear and Present Danger" to the US - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

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


8 posted on 04/16/2010 12:23:56 PM PDT by JoSixChip (It's time to embrace the madness! The sooner we default the sooner we can reorganize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
Long ago when i was in school, we were taught about "checks and balances".

And you believed all that? I was taught that Congress had to actually vote on pieces of legislation. (Remember the cartoon of the Bill wending it's way through both Houses?) Now I learn that they can just Deem it Passed. Bet you believed they had to actually vote too.

Boy, were we snookered!

9 posted on 04/16/2010 12:25:05 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BP2; LucyT; hoosiermama; rxsid

i was gonna post something from the ruling, but Lamberth
wrote SOOOO MUCH .....like a pagagraph list of reasons of why the case was dismissed.


10 posted on 04/16/2010 12:31:21 PM PDT by urtax$@work (The best kind of memorial is a Burning Memorial.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: urtax$@work
It is the normal response of a liar to overly explain why, how, and why not. A good liar finds a believable succint reason and sticks with just that - simple, clean, concise....

The judge is a bought-off crook, period. I don't care who or why he/she was put where they are, or by whom. Crook, period...

12 posted on 04/16/2010 12:36:50 PM PDT by Gaffer ("Profling: The only profile I need is a chalk outline around their dead ass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Sorry for the lack of paragraph breaks. I'll try again:

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.

I. The Government’s Motion to Dismiss

A. Quo Warranto Claims

Orly Taitz has filed suit seeking this Court to issue a writ of quo warranto against the President of the United States to determine his eligibility for office. See D.C. CODE § 16-3501. A writ of quo warranto is a “common-law writ used to inquire the authority by which a public office is held.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1371 (9th ed. 2009). The District of Columbia Code has two statutes regarding the initiation of a quo warranto proceeding. The first provides that the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney may institute such an action on their own motion or on the relation of a third person. D.C. CODE § 16-3502. If the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney does so on the relation of a third person, they must first seek leave of court. Id. The Code also provides that if the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney “refuse 0 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.

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.

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)). The Court of Appeals reasoned that this must be the case because challenges to authority by which a public office is held “involve a right belonging to the whole body of the public which can be protected only by a public representative.” Carmody, 148 F.2d at 685.

That holding of the Court of Appeals is rooted in the doctrine of standing To bring a case in federal court a plaintiff must establish that he or she has standing to do so, which is essentially a question of whether “the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute. . . .” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). There are three elements that form the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (Scalia, J.). If any one of these three requirements is not met, a plaintiff does not have standing.

The first of these is that the plaintiff must suffer an injury in fact. Id. That is an injury must be concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, rather than conjectural or hypothetical. Id. Injuries which are general, rather than particularized, are not sufficient to create standing. Indeed, the Supreme Court has “consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Id. at 573-74. This is precisely the sort of injury that Ms. Taitz alleges and as such she does not have standing to pursue her claim. Because Ms. Taitz is neither the Attorney General of the United States nor the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, she does not have standing to bring a quo warranto action challenging a public official’s right to hold office.’ Accordingly Ms. Taitz’s quo warranto claims are dismissed for lack of standing.2 See FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

B. Qui Tam Claims

To bring a claim under the False Claims Act, it must be filed under seal on behalf of the United States and not served on the defendant until ordered by the court. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2). Failure to comply with these filing procedures results in dismissal of the relator’s suit with prejudice. United States ex rel. LeBlanc v. ITT Indus., 492 F. Supp. 2d 303, 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing United States ex rel. Pilon v. Martin Marietta Corp., 60 F.3d 995, at 999-1000 (2d Cir. 1995)). Ms. Taitz attempts to excuse her failure to file under seal by stating that li]n this case the facts are widely known.” [Dkt. 21 at 6.] But the qui tam statute provides no exception to the requirement a complaint be filed under seal. As Ms. Taitz did not file her complaint under seal as required by section 3730(b)(2), her qui tam claims are dismissed.

I Even if the Court of Appeals’ precedent did not firmly preclude Ms. Taitz from bringing suit to challenge President Obama’s right to hold office, the one case that discusses the circumstances under which a private person might be able to challenge a public official’s title to office despite the refusal of the Attorney General or the United States Attorney to act, suggests that the “interested person” bringing the action would have had to be actually entitled to the office herself. Newman v. United States ex rel Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 547 (1915). Ironically enough, Ms. Taitz could never establish such an injury because—as far as the Court is aware—she was not elected president nor could she be as she is not a natural born citizen herself.

2 Because Ms. Taitz lacks standing to pursue her quo warranto action her motion for a preliminary injunction is denied as moot.

C. Freedom of Information Act Claims

Ms. Taitz has also made a claim under the Freedom of Information Act, alleging that she requested “information from the Social Security Administration seeking explanation, why the defendant is using Social Security numbers of other individuals and numbers that were never assigned and what action is Social Security Administration is taking to prosecute this conduct.” She also asks that this Court issue a mandamus directing Social Security Administrator Michael J. Astrue to release an application for a Social Security number “submitted in the state of CT to an individual born in 1890″ and directing an investigation into “how Obama was able to obtain a social security belonging to an individual born in 1890″ and “how Obama was able to use 39 different social security numbers.”

The FOIA claim fails for several reasons. The first and most important of which is that she has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. As the government notes, Ms. Taitz appealed the Social Security Administration’s denial of her request on March 15, 2010 and the Social Security Administration has twenty business days from the date it received her notice to consider the administrative appeal. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii). Even if the SSA received her appeal on the 15th of March, the period cannot have run until at least April 9th. A plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial review of a FOIA claim. Wilbur v. Central Intelligence Agency, 355 F.3d 675, 677 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Because Ms. Taitz has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies,3 her claim will be dismissed.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. The writ will only issue to compel performance of a “clear nondiscretionary duty.” Pittston Coal Group. v. Sebben, 488 U.S. 105, 121 (1988) (quoting Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 612 (1984)). Ms. Taitz has neither identified any clear nondiscretionary duty that the Social Security Administrator has failed to perform nor one that is owed to her. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Furthermore, her mandamus claim merely rehashes the claim she made under FOIA, and as another judge of this Court has noted, “[t]he exclusive nature of the FOIA precludes mandamus relief.” Strunk v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 2010 WL 931197, at *1 n.1 (D.D.C. March 15, 2010) (Leon, J.). As such, Ms. Taitz has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, Ms. Taitz’s claims for mandamus relief shall be dismissed. See FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

3 Ms. Taitz would be well advised to review the Social Security Administration’s FOIA Regulations, in particular 20 C.F.R. § 402.100. See also 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6); see generally Sherman v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 244 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2001).

D. Remaining Claims

i. Common Law Fraud

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires that a plaintiff who alleges fraud or mistake must state with particularity the circumstances surrounding the fraud or mistake. A plaintiff must still, of course, comply with Rule 8’s requirements as well. Ashcroft v. lqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1954 (2009). Ms. Taitz has failed to adequately plead fraud because she has not alleged that (1) that she relied on the defendant’s allegedly fraudulent statements and (2) that she was harmed by any such reliance. Aktiselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 22-23 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing Va. Acad. of Clinical Psychologists v. Group Hospitalization & Med. Servs., Inc., 878 A.2d 1226, 1237-38 (D.C. 2005)). As such her claims for common law fraud shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

ii. Section 1983 and Section 1985 Claims

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he is a federal officer, and section 1983 does not apply to officers of the federal government. Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 2005). As such Ms. Taitz has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To the extent that Ms. Taitz is attempting to state a claim against Debra Bowen, the Court notes that Ms. Bowen is not a party to this action.

The plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 likewise fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As the Supreme Court observed recently, while Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. It must contain sufficient factual allegations that when accepted as true, “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

iii. RICO Claims

Ms. Taitz’s claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) are also defective. In order to bring a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 a civil plaintiff must allege:

(1) That the defendant (2) through the commission of two or more acts (3) constituting a “pattern” (4) of “racketeering activity” (5) directly or indirectly invests in, or maintains an interest in, or participates in (6) an “enterprise” (7) the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce. . . . [P]laintiff must [also] allege that he was “injured in his business or property by reason of [the] violation of § 1962.” Moss v. Morgan Stanley, Inc., 719 F.2d 5, 17 (2d Cir. 1983).

The Court first addresses the predicate acts Ms. Taitz has alleged. First of all, neither violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 nor 42 U.S.C. §1985 are “racketeering activities” which could be the basis for Ms. Taitz’s RICO claim. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(a) (defining which offenses are racketeering activities). They thus are not actionable as violations of section 1962. With respect to the various allegations of fraud—and fraud indeed is a predicate act for purposes of RICO liability—Ms. Taitz has failed to sufficiently plead her claims. To the degree a RICO complaint sounds in fraud, the plaintiff must meet Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirements. See Farlow v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 956 F.2d 982, 989 (10th Cir. 1992). As the Court observed earlier, Ms. Taitz’s fraud claims fail to even meet the standards of Rule 8, much less the heightened requirements of Rule 9(b). Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1954. As such, she has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and her RICO claims will be dismissed. FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

iv. Commerce Clause Claims

Ms. Taitz has also asks this Court to declare that the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, violates the commerce clause and/or is unconstitutional because President Obama has not proved that he is a natural born citizen and thus cannot legitimately sign the bill into law. As this Court has already decided, the latter claims presented by Ms. Taitz are generalized grievances about the proper administration of the government for which she does not have standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.

At the time that Ms. Taitz filed her amended complaint, President Obama had not yet signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. Standing is measured, however, at the time of filing. See, e.g., Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1267 (11th Cir. 2001). As the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was not signed into law until after her amended complaint was filed, at the time of filing Ms. Taitz did not have an injury that was concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, rather than conjectural or hypothetical. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. As such she does not have standing to pursue her claims that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and they will be dismissed.

Even if Ms. Taitz could establish standing on this point, she has still failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as she has done nothing more than provide “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully­harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Her failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted would prevent her from proceeding here had she established standing.

II. Motion to Intervene

Christopher Strunk has filed a motion to intervene in this suit, which is opposed by the government. The government’s opposition was filed out of time and the government has asked for leave to file their opposition, which the prospective intervenor has not objected to. Counsel for the government has met the standard for excusable neglect and the filing shall be permitted. See Wilson v. Feldman, 1991 WL 197025, at *1 (D.D.C. Sep. 18, 1991) (Lamberth, J.).

In order to intervene, the prospective intervenor must establish that he too has standing. Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 523 F. Supp. 2d 5, 9 (D.D.C. 2007) (Lamberth, J.). All of the reasons that preclude the plaintiff in this case from bringing a quo warranto action against the President, similarly apply to the intervenor. As such the motion to intervene shall be denied.

Motion to Consolidate 28 U.S.C. § 1407 requires that any motion to consolidate must be filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Section 1407 also states that “[s]uch transfers shall be made by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation. . . .” Given that this decision is committed to the panel, rather than this Court, the Court is bound to deny the motion without prejudice as it lacks the jurisdiction to consider it. Accordingly, the motion will be denied.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth in this opinion the government’s motion to dismiss shall be granted, the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied as moot, Christopher Strunk’s motion to intervene shall be denied, and the plaintiffs motion to consolidate is denied for want of jurisdiction.

A separate order shall issue today.

April 14, 2010.

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH Chief Judge
United States District Court

13 posted on 04/16/2010 12:39:06 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

No surprise. I said it was coming a few days ago when he “judicially noticed” her.

parsy, who isn’t at all surprised


14 posted on 04/16/2010 12:39:36 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 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
It is the normal response of a liar to overly explain why, how, and why not. A good liar finds a believable succint reason and sticks with just that - simple, clean, concise....

No, a competent judge cites the applicable law, precedents and rules.

Incompetent attorneys such as Taitz ignore all that, in favor of wild, generalized accusations with no basis in fact.

15 posted on 04/16/2010 12:46:17 PM PDT by browardchad ("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact." - Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

Oh, this is cute! From the decision:

“Ironically enough, Ms. Taitz could never establish such an injury because—as far as the Court is aware—she was not elected president nor could she be as she is not a natural born citizen herself.”

parsy, who says the Judge is gigging her


16 posted on 04/16/2010 12:47:38 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 1 | View Replies]

To: browardchad

EVERY case has been dismissed on the grounds of “lack of standing”;it is pretty clear the judiciary is scared to death of the Chicago thug-in-chief.


17 posted on 04/16/2010 12:50:45 PM PDT by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
EVERY case has been dismissed on the grounds of “lack of standing”;it is pretty clear the judiciary is scared to death of the Chicago thug-in-chief.

No it's abolutely clear that Taitz is an incompetent attorney.

18 posted on 04/16/2010 12:53:23 PM PDT by browardchad ("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact." - Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

Either that or she doesn’t have standing to bring her claims. One of the two.


19 posted on 04/16/2010 12:54:13 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: browardchad

“No it’s abolutely clear that Taitz is an incompetent attorney.”
__

She’s unquestionably an incompetent attorney. But all the other eligibility attorneys have gotten similar results, so maybe they’re all incompetent ... which kinda makes you wonder why no competent attorneys would touch these cases.


20 posted on 04/16/2010 12:57:53 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
The judge is a bought-off crook, period.

Lamberth was one of the toughest judges against Clinton's wrongdoing. You might want to not just knee-jerk an attack against him, given Taitz's poor history in courtrooms.

21 posted on 04/16/2010 12:58:33 PM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Danae
Do you know if Leo Donofrio will file his own QW on behalf of Chrysler Dealers?

See tagline.

22 posted on 04/16/2010 1:02:00 PM PDT by circumbendibus (Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president. Quo Warranto in 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer; urtax$@work; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Orly v Obama – Dismissed

"i was gonna post something from the ruling, but Lamberth wrote SOOOO MUCH .....like a pagagraph list of reasons of why the case was dismissed.

"10 posted on Friday, April 16, 2010 1:31:21 PM by urtax$@work"

"To: urtax$@work

"It is the normal response of a liar to overly explain why, how, and why not. A good liar finds a believable succint reason and sticks with just that - simple, clean, concise....

"The judge is a bought-off crook, period. I don't care who or why he/she was put where they are, or by whom. Crook, period..."

"12 posted on Friday, April 16, 2010 1:36:50 PM by Gaffer ("Profling: The only profile I need is a chalk outline around their dead ass!") "

23 posted on 04/16/2010 1:02:54 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22

“. . .which kinda makes you wonder why no competent attorneys would touch these cases.”

It should make people wonder. Lacking either a factual or legal basis for a suit is a good place to begin.

parsy, who doesn’t wonder


24 posted on 04/16/2010 1:04:34 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 20 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

Parsifal, how much do you get paid to troll these threads?


25 posted on 04/16/2010 1:17:48 PM PDT by Lachisula
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

I’m shocked I tell you shocked...


26 posted on 04/16/2010 1:17:54 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

zot.

Problem solved.

310 posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 3:38:46 PM by Jim Robinson (JUST VOTE THEM OUT! teapartyexpress.org)


27 posted on 04/16/2010 1:23:32 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 16 | View Replies]

To: Lachisula

Its all for free. I have a keen interest in the legal aspects of this stuff. To my knowledge, there has never been an Orly before, and I think we all should enjoy her antics while we can. (Hemenway, Apuzzo, and others are just as wrong, but far less comical.)

parsy, who has enough sense to stop and smell the roses.


28 posted on 04/16/2010 1:23:35 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 25 | View Replies]

To: Lachisula

Birther-control is a passion not a profession donchano!

Tauny, knows something


29 posted on 04/16/2010 1:27:51 PM PDT by TauntedTiger (Keep away from the fence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once".

JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI

30 posted on 04/16/2010 1:53:20 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, A Matter Of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
No-- the statement about tilting at windmills was made about the eligibility claim

Doesn't matter. Don't you think that is very odd...and somewhat biased...language to be issued from the bench in an official ruling on a defendant's motion?

31 posted on 04/16/2010 2:07:36 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: circumbendibus
Do you know if Leo Donofrio will file his own QW on behalf of Chrysler Dealers?

Chief Judge Lambreth just ruled that the only people who have standing to bring a quo warranto are the Attorney General, the U.S. Attorney, and the person claiming to be the rightful holder of the office (which would be Biden).

32 posted on 04/16/2010 2:25:09 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
EVERY case has been dismissed on the grounds of “lack of standing”;it is pretty clear the judiciary is scared to death of the Chicago thug-in-chief.

The Arkeny case in Indiana was decided on the merits (and found that Obama is a Natural-Born Citizen).

33 posted on 04/16/2010 2:27:47 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
which kinda makes you wonder why no competent attorneys would touch these cases.

Because they know enough law to know that the Courts won't decide a President's eligibility, which is an issue for the Electoral Collega and the Congress.

34 posted on 04/16/2010 2:29:33 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

It’s edging back in, isn’t it.


35 posted on 04/16/2010 2:38:35 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

Not so improbably any more...


36 posted on 04/16/2010 2:39:29 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; LucyT
Well, what do we see here on another thread?

Justice Thomas: 'The court is 'avoiding' the Natural Born Citizen question.

We know Obama is not qualified, the Obots know Obama is not qualified, and the US court justices know Obama is not qualified. Justice Thomas let out the truth. It is as clear as the zits on the faces of the lying trolls here.

37 posted on 04/16/2010 3:03:41 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

It is the normal response of a liar to overly explain why, how, and why not. A good liar finds a believable succint reason and sticks with just that - simple, clean, concise....
The judge is a bought-off crook, period. I don’t care who or why he/she was put where they are, or by whom. Crook, period...


You can call one of the most respected conservative judges in the nation all names you want but the fact remains that this is the 61st. Obama eligibility lawsuit to be dismissed by judges and justices at every level of the judiciary and in pratically every jurisdiction in the nation.
The “crooks” on the US Supreme Court have denied seven Obama eligibility lawsuits even with a conservative majority and it only takes 4 of the 9 Justices to agree to hear a case.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”—Einstein
OBAMA ELIGIBILITY LAWSUITS

Allen v. Soetoro
Freedom Of Information Act Arizona District: Filed

Ankeny v. Daniels (and McCain) Indiana State: Dismissed
Indiana Supreme Court: Denied

Barnett v Obama, California Central District: Dismissed
formerly Keyes v Obama et al, 9th US Court of Appeals: Pending

Berg v. Obama et. al. Fed PA Eastern: Dismissed
3rd Circuit Appeals Appealed Brief FEC
Hearing 26-Oct-2009
Supreme Court Of The United States: Denied

Berg v. Obama Fed DC District: Dismissed

Beverly v FEC, US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit: Dismissed
US Supreme Court: Denied

Brockhausen v. Andrade, Texas State: Dismissed

Broe v. Reed Washington State Supreme: Dismissed

The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri et al v. Obama et. al.
Dismissed

Cohen v. Obama, DC: Dismissed

Connerat v. Browning, Florida Supreme Court : Dismissed
Connerat v. Obama FL Small Claims: Dismissed

Constitution Party v. Lingle, Hawaii Supreme Court: Dismissed
Reconsideration: Denied

Cook v. Good et al GA Middle: Dismissed

Cook v. Simtech FL Middle: Dismissed

Craig v. US: Judgment in favor of defendant
Dismissal Affirmed
U.S. Supreme Court: Writ Denied 29-Sep-2009

Dawson v. Obama California Eastern District: Dismissed

Donofrio v Wells: NJ State Dismissed
NJ Supreme Court Denied
Supreme Court Of The United States: Denied

Ealey v. Obama TX Houston: Dismissed

Essek v. Obama KY Eastern: Dismissed

Gopalan v Obama III et. al., CA Southern: Dismissed

Greenberg v. Brunner, Ohio Wood County Court: Dismissed

Hamblin v Obama/McCain Arizona District: Dismissed

Herbert v. Obama et al Fed FL Middle: Dismissed

Hollister v. Soetoro, Fed DC: Dismissed

Hunter v. Obama, US District Northern Texas : Dismissed

Jones v. Obama, Federal Court Cal. Central District: Pending

Judy v. McCain, US District Court Nevada North: Dismissed

Kerchner et al v. Obama et al., Federal District Court New Jersey: Dismissed
US Court of Appeals 10th District: Pending

Keyes v. Bowen Superior Court of CA: Dismissed

Keyes v. Lingle, Hawaii state: Dismissed

Lightfoot v. Bowen , Supreme Court Of The United States: Denied

Marquis v. Reed, Washington State Court, King County Superior: Dismissed

Martin v Lingle, HI State: Dismissed
HI State Appeal: Dismissed

Meroni et al v. McHenry County Grand Jury Foreman et al. , Illinois State: Denied

Morrow v. Barak Humane Obama Fed FL Miami: Dismissed

Neal v. Brunner, Ohio State Wood County: Dismissed

Neely v. Obama, Fed MI: Dismissed

Patriot Heart’s Network v Soetoro, DC Federal: Denied

Rhodes v. Gates TX West: Denied

Rhodes v. MacDonald GA Middle: Dismissed, Denied Rehearing, Sanctions Imposed

Roy v. Obama Fed HI: Dismissed

Schneller v. Cortes
PA Supreme Court: Denied
Supreme Court of the United States: Dismissed

Spuck v. Secretary of State, Ohio State, Erie County: Dismissed

Stamper v. US: Dismissed

Stumpo v. Granholm, MI State Court 30th Dist. Court (Ingham County): Dismissed

Strunk Fed NY Eastern: Dismissed
Strunk 2nd Circuit: Denied
Strunk v U.S. Department of State
FOIA Fed District of Columbia
DC Circuit Appealed

Sullivan v. Marshall, North Carolina Superior Court: Dismissed

Taitz v Obama, US District DC: Dismissed

Thomas v. Hosemann Fed Dist Hawaii: Dismissed

Terry v. Handel, Georgia State Court Fulton County: Denied

Welch v. Mukasey et al NY Northern District: Dismissed

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz CT State: Dismissed
Supreme Court Of The United States: Denied


38 posted on 04/16/2010 3:15:00 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; Lurking Libertarian

LL says:

Chief Judge Lambreth just ruled that the only people who have standing to bring a quo warranto are the Attorney General, the U.S. Attorney, and the person claiming to be the rightful holder of the office (which would be Biden).


LL - I didn’t read all the legalese, is this your understanding or is that a quote?


So that’s pretty tidy. The only people with standing are complicit in the fraud and have everything to gain and much to lose if a court ever hears it.

Catch 22 of all Catch 22s.


39 posted on 04/16/2010 3:16:55 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The Arkeny case in Indiana was decided on the merits (and found that Obama is a Natural-Born Citizen).

Well, I guess we can now have anchor baby's as POTUS then.

Arkeny was decided (wrongly) by an Appellate Court and has no bearing on the Constitutional requirements for POTUS.

40 posted on 04/16/2010 3:19:20 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 33 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Your list proves nothing other than to suggest you enjoy not seeing any progress in this case.

Why is that?

41 posted on 04/16/2010 3:23:07 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 38 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

I think it’s pretty obvious. ////


42 posted on 04/16/2010 3:24:56 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

You know and I know, but you think he knows?

:)


43 posted on 04/16/2010 3:26:46 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 42 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

I think everyone on the wrong side knows. They aren’t fooling themselves that they’re being “objective”. They’re just rooting for the wrong team.


44 posted on 04/16/2010 3:29:45 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
LL - I didn’t read all the legalese, is this your understanding or is that a quote?

From the decision:

"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)). The Court of Appeals reasoned that this must be the case because challenges to authority by which a public office is held “involve a right belonging to the whole body of the public which can be protected only by a public representative.” Carmody, 148 F.2d at 685. ...

"Even if the Court of Appeals’ precedent did not firmly preclude Ms. Taitz from bringing suit to challenge President Obama’s right to hold office, the one case that discusses the circumstances under which a private person might be able to challenge a public official’s title to office despite the refusal of the Attorney General or the United States Attorney to act, suggests that the “interested person” bringing the action would have had to be actually entitled to the office herself. Newman v. United States ex rel Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 547 (1915). Ironically enough, Ms. Taitz could never establish such an injury because—as far as the Court is aware—she was not elected president nor could she be as she is not a natural born citizen herself."

45 posted on 04/16/2010 3:32:38 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Sad but true. It seems like they have been doing it for so long now that their ego’s won’t allow them to admit their mistake, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.


46 posted on 04/16/2010 3:34:09 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 44 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
The judge is a bought-off crook, period. I don't care who or why he/she was put where they are, or by whom. Crook, period...

Funny...I sure remember how much we were fans of his during the Clinton years when he was letting some of those lawsuits go forward. Maybe the problem is not with the judge.

47 posted on 04/16/2010 3:36:58 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; LucyT

You forgot the part about him being a cousin of Barack 0bama.


48 posted on 04/16/2010 3:39:06 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I haven’t got the time to analysis the opinion, but I do not think the DC courts are categorically omitted from pursuing a Quo Warranto case. You’d have to show me where it states that ONLY an AG can do it.


49 posted on 04/16/2010 3:41:30 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
Arkeny was decided (wrongly) by an Appellate Court

The Indiana Supreme Court just denied review, so the plaintiff can now ask SCOTUS to review the decision. I doubt they will.

and has no bearing on the Constitutional requirements for POTUS.

Not sure what you mean there. It is a court decision on what those Constitutional requirements are--it is, in fact, the only court decision in the history of the U.S. to directly rule on that issue; prior cases discussed the issue only in dicta (they were not actual challenges to a President's eligibility).

50 posted on 04/16/2010 3:41:42 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 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