Posted on 04/10/2010 10:31:17 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Plaintiff in this case respectfully requests a judicial notice of the order by Judge Roger Vinson, Northern district of Florida, State of Florida et al v Department of Health et al 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT. Exhibit 1.
Plaintiff in this case, being a Doctor of Dental Surgery, was seeking an intervener status in case 10-cv-91, which was brought by attorneys of 13 states challenging constitutionality of the Healthcare Bill H.R. 3590. While motion to intervene was not granted under judicial discretion due to the fact that multiple interveners have filed their motions and the presiding judge decided to limit the case to the issue of the Commerce clause raised by the original plaintiffs, this order provides an indication of the plaintiff’s standing to bring forward her challenge of the H.R. 3590, noting “Taitz contends, and I agree, that she has satisfied steps (1) and (2). Her motion to intervene was timely and, as a Doctor of Dental Surgery, who will be affected by this act, she clearly has an interest in this action”.
Regardless of whether ultimately the plaintiff in this action will prevail or not, above ruling of the sister court has indicated that Taitz has standing to bring her action challenging H.R. 3590, which to a great extend serves as an opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss due to lack of standing.
Additionally, Judge Vinson does not find the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility due to lack of Natural Born status to be frivolous. He simply states that in the interest of expediency he decided to limit the case to the issues raised by the original plaintiffs. Yet again is seems to negate the notion by the defense that the eligibility issue is frivolous. Clearly, the plaintiff, as A Doctor of Dental Surgery, having tangible interest and standing to bring forward the issue of legitimacy of H.R. 3590 “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” can do so on both the basis of violation of the Commerce clause, as well as on basis of Common law Fraud and Quo Warranto, asserting that the bill was signed by one who got into the position of Presidency by virtue of fraud and concealment of all of the original vital records, as the affidavits of three licensed investigators show that the defendant fraudulently used multiple US Social Security numbers, and the Social Security number 042-68-4425 used by the defendant for most of his life, was issued to another individual in the state of Connecticut. US Attorneys Machen, Contreras and Burch, who have been representing the defendant in this case, have a conflicting duty to “We The People of the United States”, including the plaintiff in this case, to protect and defend them against such fraud. Above US attorneys have been put on notice of the fraud committed via the pleadings in this case, yet they breached their duty and their Oath of Office to defend the Constitution and to defend “We, the People of the United States”. As such, they became accomplices to the above fraud and other possible criminal acts, to be fully investigated during discovery. Judge Vinson in his order states “The parties to this litigation, and, indeed, the citizens of this country, have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as possible”. The plaintiff is praying for expedient discovery, as she, as well as other doctors and other citizens need an adjudication on the issue of fraud committed by Mr. Obama in order to get into office.
Wherefore,
Plaintiff respectfully requests Judicial notice of the above order as an indication of the Plaintiffs standing. She also requests expedient adjudication of prior Motion for Injunctive relief, as well as the plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, which the clerk of the court has erroneously docketed together with the First Amended Complaint (pages 129-145) when the plaintiff’s Electronic Filing Code didn’t function yet.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Orly isn’t on your side.
It seems to me Vinson was writing tongue-in-cheek, if you read it carefully. :) After all, when Orly filed 154 pages of attachments, none of which had anything remotely to do with health care, to try to horn in on a suit that's exclusively about HCR, could he actually take her seriously?
2) The “quo warranto” judge will rush his decision up to chop out the underlying claim.
Judge Lamberth hasn't said a word as yet. The clerks have just been patiently documenting Orly's endless submissions. In this one, by the way, she also threatens to prosecute the US Attorneys for fraud because they dared to file motions to dismiss (which is their job). She sure has a way of impressing judges with her unique interpretation of the law.
If it weren't for Orly Obama’s eligibility wouldn't have received the Internet publicity that it has.
All it takes is one judge and the game is over for Obama.
Shameless vanity. I posted this last nite on another thread for all those unjustly accused of being trolls:
On the issues of “trolls”, I am somewhat sensitive, because I feel I have been unjustly accused of a crime that I didn’t commit. I am looking around for a screenwriter to do a television series, like BRANDED, or maybe THE FUGITIVE. I kind of like BRANDED, because the theme music is kewler.
Branded, scorned as a OBOT Mole- doo doo doo dooooo.
What do you do when you’re branded?
And they call you a TROLL....
So far, no one is interested.
However, I have written a poem, which should apply to those unjustly accused of being Trolls, whoever and wherever they might be:
The Troll Poem
by parsifal
If you don’t agree with ME,
You surely are a TROLL, you see.
It all works out so LOGICKLY,
YOU are a Troll, if WE don’t agree.
And if you disagree with ME,
I’ll tell the MODS, just wait and see!
That’s how I’ll WIN my victory.
By TANTRUMS from my nursery.
I’ll save the MENTAL energy
Defending MY absurdity,
From ANY who might disagree
By crying “TROLL” quite frequently.
I have no sense of DECENCY.
It’s all about my VANITY.
The Center of the Universe is ME!
And you’re a TROLL if you don’t agree!
Optional T.S.Eliot type ending, for high class web sites:
This is how the argument ends...
This is how the argument ends...
This is how the argument ends...
Not with a bang. . .but a Simper.
I have to say that we're getting to the point where Orly is not even funny anymore.
It's like watching seventeen straight hours of Monty Python.
Eventually you just can't believe anyone could do this.
I think you are going down a road that some other conservatives have traveled. That is, “Orly may be nutz, and the issue ridiculous, BUT if it throws mud on Obama, so be it.” For all I know, you may be right. But there are dangers.
First, a lie is a lie is a lie. Doesn’t matter who says it, if it isn’t true, then it is morally wrong. Plus, lies and mis-truths have a way of backfiring on people.
Second, and forgetting for now the moral implications and focusing only on cynical political considerations: is the mudslinging really having any impact on voters who will likely vote for Obama in the future? My instinct tells me the only people who believe this are people who didn’t vote for Obama in the first place. So, there is no gain.
But the analysis should not stop there. In the last election most independents went for Obama as I recall. That group of voters is less partisan. They can swing to Obama, they can swing to Palin, for example. They are the unknown.
The question is, how does the mudslinging affect them? It seems Obama and his cohorts are quite prepared to smear conservatives, the Tea Party, the GOP, Palin, etc. with the “crazy” brush. So, for no net gain, the mudslinging may actually turn into a net loss. That is the fear expressed by most serious conservative pundits, including Beck and Coulter, and others.
As for me, I just think it is wrong to lie about stuff. Back in the Reagan days, I was a staunch Republican, and might be again if they ever run off the durn economic Libertarian goobers. I remember how Saint Teddy Kennedy and the foul Democrats used to trash Reagan and accuse him of trying to destroy the country, and being a nazi, and hater and all that crap. I thought it was wrong then.
I never had a problem with people disagreeing with his policies, but the hateful crap seemed wrong to me. Reagan was our President, like him or not, and any implication that he wasn’t doing what he thought was right, whether you agreed with him or not, seemed out of place. It still seems wrong to me.
So, if you choose the “mudslinging is fine if it hurts the other side” road, just be prepared for a potential backfire.
parsy
I think you’re right. That remark about other issues, and the credibility of the BC did seem to have the air of snark about it.
But, she had nothing to lose. The quo warranto was going down regardless of whether she tried to consolidate or not. The really embarrassing thing would have been if one or more of the AG’s had moved in opposition to her Motion. That would have looked bad in her political campaign. This way, she can blame the “corrupt” legal system.
parsy
Hey there.
Are you off of double secret probation?
Well. I do hope that you are not holding your breath waiting.
No. I don’t think this thread really counts as an eligibility type thread. It is more about Orly. And, I am staying away from fully expressing my opinion about the merits. However, the little sissies on the other thread are coming to life. Who knows.
parsy, who thinks Orly will be dismissed in DC pretty quickly now
We're a hard-core cadre of Obots who have been around for anywhere from a few years to a decade just waiting for our cells to be activated.
Good things you joined a few weeks ago to point this out.
Parsy’s invited to share his thoughts on any article I post.
He can’t be accused of trolling if he and the freeper who posted the article are in agreement, can he?
Tex
I mean, jeeze...
Go Orly go!
Are you saying that Barry’s Presidency is a lunacy?
I agree. Plus, I am not really letting loose on the other guys the way I want to.
parsy, the well behaved
Your attorney is an incompetent clown.
Rethink your strategy.
SHut up, man! You aren't supposed to tell them that!
Sorry.
It just slipped out.
I guess that’s why I never get promoted.
Well, Cpt. Barnett, please accept my sincerest thanks for your service to our beloved nation. Your sacrifice is appreciated and held in highest regard.
Now, I’ll address the points you raised.
First, you mistakenly assume that any freeper who disagrees with the unconscionable tactics of Orly Taitz is automatically an Obot. You’re very wrong. Birthers use “respect for Orly” as a conservative litmus test on FR. But, last I checked, “respect for Orly Taitz” wasn’t listed in the Republican Party platform as a value conservatives uphold and support. Neither do I see it listed in Jim Robinson’s mission statement for FR.
I am a freedom-loving, law-abiding conservative. I despise Barack Hussien Obama and his Chicago Thugs. I’m terrified that they’ll damage our beloved nation more than that from which we will be able to recover. I am not an Obot and I am not a troll. Most of the other freepers who feel the same way about Orly as I do are also conservatives and not trolls or Obots.
Secondly, you also mistakenly assume that I don’t find the Constitution worthy of defending. You couldn’t be further from the truth. As the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution must be defended - from Obama and Orly!
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. would have the Constitution twisted and the rules that govern our justice system bent to achieve her goal of having Obama removed from office. She hasn’t presented a shred of credible evidence that Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove his/her case. Yet Orly would have the defendant prove to the plaintiff that he is a natural born citizen.
In case Orly didn’t tell you, the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen.” So we must look elsewhere for that definition and attempt to understand the intent of the Founding Fathers. The fact is we don’t know whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen because the SCOTUS has not ruled on his specific birth circumstances. We can make arguments for and against his NBC status. But until we can bring a proper case to the SCOTUS, we’ve got nada.
Ask yourself this question: Are you willing to accept a ruling by the SCOTUS that Obama is a natural born citizen? If you’re unwilling, then it’s not the Constiution you want to see upheld but rather your (and Orly’s and every other birther’s) interpretation of it.
In my experience with birthers, they say they want the Constitution upheld, but in truth, what they really want is their own definitions of “natural born citizen” to be upheld as valid. And no proof Obama provided to that end would be acceptable to birthers. If he provided the long-form BC tomorrow, they’d claim he had two plus years to produce a perfect forgery. They already accuse the Hawaii DoH officials of conspiracy and certain Honorable Federal Judges of being corrupt or “gotten to.” So no legal statements from the Hawaii government will suffice and neither will any judicial ruling that is contrary to the goal of removing Obama. What evidence will satisfy the birthers? Obama’s removal from office is the only acceptable outcome for birthers.
Let’s be honest, it’s not about the Constitution because natural born citizen is not defined there. It’s about removing Obama from office. And Orly is willing to use anyone who suits her purpose and any method that brings about the end goal.
Orly Taitz is no patriot.
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.