[Hostage]

Bloomberg breaks the news too with a little more detail:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-22/obama-immigration-suit-by-sheriff-finds-judge-skeptic.html

> “Based on legal decisions federal court in Washington regarding harm from third parties, “you’ve got a big problem with standing,” she told Larry Klayman, a lawyer for Arpaio.”

Having read the excellent reply filed Friday by Klayman in regards to ‘Standing’, I would say to the judge “YOU’VE GOT A BIG PROBLEM WITH FOLLOWING THE LAW!”.

Here’s Klayman’s reply for Arpaio:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/250527960/14-cv-01966-Document19-12-18-14

Direct argument for Standing starts on page 11.

But it won’t matter. This case will be dismissed. Good news is the ruling will be based on Standing and not on the elements that underly a motion for injunction. That means it cannot be used in other cases where Standing is granted.

This is just the first skirmish.

[Liz]

Mmmmm........suing for the reason stated seems a bit simplistic.

Arapaio should let the rubber hit the road.

(1) He should sue the malpractice insurance companies of any lawyer representing illegals and/or advising them on ways to contravene US law.

(2) Mobilizing the Bank Secrecy act should also be considered-----to determine who exactly is aiding and abetting crimes against the state by funding these felons.

(3) Lawyers who attempt to bring to court clients "w/ unclean hands" (a legal term meaning those who committed crimes) should be reported to the state's Bar Association....and considered for disbarment.

[OddLane]

BTTT.

[cherokee1]

If an elected sheriff in a state with an immigration problem doesn’t have standing to sue for relief then who the bleep WOULD have standing? The sheriff could demonstrate his lack of standing by rosd-blocking and arresting every Feral bleephole who tries to move in his county. And I’ll send him another contribution to help finance the effort.

[Ray76]

re: #4, #6

Thanks