Skip to comments.
U.S. Attorneys' Office moves to dismiss Orly Taitz's Quo Warranto case
U.S. District Court for D.C. ^
| 02/26/2010
| U.S. Attorneys' Office
Posted on 03/02/2010 1:15:47 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
To: mlo; Non-Sequitur; parsifal; Pilsner; Drew68; curiosity; Sibre Fan; El Sordo; MilspecRob; ...
Ping to an Orly Taitz whack-a-mole thread.
2
posted on
03/02/2010 1:17:24 PM PST
by
BuckeyeTexan
(Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
To: BuckeyeTexan
Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied Dr. Taitz's motion to reinstate her appeal in Cook v. Good, which she filed late and printed double-sided in violation of court rules.Can you say "malpractice," boys and girls?
I knew you could!
To: BuckeyeTexan
The only thing it would take to show the birth certificate would be a march of about 100,000 people sitting in on the national mall.
4
posted on
03/02/2010 1:23:23 PM PST
by
rjp2005
(Lord have mercy on us)
To: BuckeyeTexan
.....she is too busy to comment now....
She also appears to be too busy to learn even a rudimentary knowledge of the law or court procedures.
5
posted on
03/02/2010 1:24:03 PM PST
by
mono
To: rjp2005
The only thing it would take to show the birth certificate would be a march of about 100,000 people 
To: BuckeyeTexan
Dr. Taitz responded on her blog that she's too busy to look at the filings but will comment when she has a chance to read them. To busy doing what? Did someone let a TV camera get near her?
Maybe if some one told her they were fillings and not filings then it might pique her professional curiosity?
To: BuckeyeTexan
8
posted on
03/02/2010 1:33:30 PM PST
by
ari-freedom
(Rush:Remember to put your faith in ideas and not people. People will always, always disappoint you!)
To: rjp2005
“The only thing it would take to show the birth certificate would be a march of about 100,000 people sitting in on the national mall.”
It also wouldn’t hurt to have lawyers with a clue.
9
posted on
03/02/2010 1:36:40 PM PST
by
ari-freedom
(Rush:Remember to put your faith in ideas and not people. People will always, always disappoint you!)
To: All
Dosen’t this Taitz person come up the the REAL birth certificate every other week ?
10
posted on
03/02/2010 1:45:13 PM PST
by
sonic109
To: BuckeyeTexan
How DARE an American citizen demand Obama satisfy the Constitution!
To: BuckeyeTexan
12
posted on
03/02/2010 1:49:09 PM PST
by
El Sordo
(The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
To: BuckeyeTexan
keep holding your breath....
these are the types of things that allow the lefties to point at conservatives and holler nut case
To: BuckeyeTexan
US DoJ admits Taitz has standing and tries to cover with
Corrected Memorandum.
In fact, Taitz claims in her complaint she has been subjected to attacks by "Obama's supporters and some judiciary, acting as tools to silence her ..."
Cf. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 32,41 (1971) ... plaintiffs have standing when plaintiff alleges prosecution, threat of prosecution or possibility of prosecution.
14
posted on
03/02/2010 1:57:12 PM PST
by
SvenMagnussen
(Clever tag line can only be seen on the other Internets.)
To: BuckeyeTexan
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 99.99999% chance it will be granted. .00001% chance not. Maybe they ask Obama to put a certified COLB in the record to shut some of these goobers up. But, I look for this to happen in 2012 to gut the GOP of its base.Maybe this year to help save Congress.
parsy, who bets Orly, Queen of the Birthers, hasn’t got a clue what to do...
15
posted on
03/02/2010 1:57:59 PM PST
by
parsifal
(Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
To: BuckeyeTexan
I'm no attorney. But it seems to me the fed attorneys missed an obvious point - the tort actions filed in the past had the issue of standing because there was some injury at issue.
A quo warranto action is about whether an official is qualified to hold an office, whether or not they have 'injured' anyone. So the the question of 'standing' is moot.
To: the long march
17
posted on
03/02/2010 2:00:46 PM PST
by
parsifal
(Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
To: the long march
18
posted on
03/02/2010 2:00:47 PM PST
by
parsifal
(Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
To: the long march
19
posted on
03/02/2010 2:00:48 PM PST
by
parsifal
(Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
To: mono
She also appears to be too busy to learn even a rudimentary knowledge of the law or court procedures. Those details are for the little lawyers, she's the Queen of the Birthers>
20
posted on
03/02/2010 2:01:59 PM PST
by
lucysmom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
