Okay. What? I think I have to be lawyer just to read the thread title. Someone break this down to non-lawyer English for me.
Orly filed a reponse to the DOJ lawyers trying to get the case in front of Judge Carter dismissed. They screwed up. LEo point out how the DOJ lawyers gave Orly a big opening. See on Leo’s site. After reading the first page it should be more clear.
>>> Okay. What? I think I have to be lawyer just to read the thread title. Someone break this down to non-lawyer English for me.
I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the arguments.
The response makes an excellent case that this “legal standing” stuff is a bunch of BS.
In a nutshell, it says that the defendant’s motion to dismiss quotes no law or constitutional grounds for it’s claims...
and that the constitution provides for “THE PEOPLE” to have redress through the courts when elected officials and bodies (congress) fails to carry out it’s constitutional duty.
And that the courts are given the power to assert process where the constitution is vague. (i.e. no process for verification)
The majority of the response explained in detail with examples and powerful arguments why this whole process and history of other cases demonstrates that the defendant is hiding something, and most importantly that THE PEOPLE have every right to challenge constitutionality through the courts according to the 1st and 9th ammendments.
I think it could mean that Taitz and Alan Keyes may have kicked the DOJ's butts all the way back to DC from Santa Ana California. We'll have wait and see what the Judge thinks though.
In a nutshell, the response is saying that Congress and the Electoral College failed in its duty to determine the eligibility of Obama to be POTUS and that because they failed in their duty, the people have the right to demand that the zero’s qualifications be presented for public examination.