Orly v Obama – Dismissed

nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 4/16/2010 | Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth

[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.

[dirtboy]

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.

[circumbendibus]

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

See tagline.

[LucyT]

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!") "

[parsifal]

“. . .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

[Lachisula]

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

[montanajoe]

I’m shocked I tell you shocked...

[Las Vegas Ron]

zot.

Problem solved.

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

[parsifal]

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.

[TauntedTiger]

Birther-control is a passion not a profession donchano!

Tauny, knows something

[SWAMPSNIPER]

"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

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

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?

[Lurking Libertarian]

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).

[Lurking Libertarian]

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).

[Lurking Libertarian]

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.

[little jeremiah]

It’s edging back in, isn’t it.

[little jeremiah]

Not so improbably any more...

[Red Steel]

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.

[jamese777]

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

[little jeremiah]

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.

[Las Vegas Ron]

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.