Taking her recent past as guide, it is likely that Dr. Taitz has been too enthusiastic in her characterization of what the Judge said in the hearing. He was basically allowing the U.S. Attorney for the area to receive the serving on the case that was misinterpreted back in January when the pres__ent was initially served. Orly may have heard more than was said, reading between the lines so to speak. But you have to applaud her tenacity in continuing to pound this issue! ... If you believe the Constitution needs to be enforced at this late hour.
My husband said something that cracked me up: Obama, just limping along trying to suck less. I LOL’ed.
Orley does get excited and sometimes reads in between the lines incorrectly. I don’t think she is the greatest scholar, but if it makes it to court she will have others to help like berg etc. Some really good minds I am sure will offer their assistance.
I think as i posted previously that this is now a hearing to see if procedure was followed in the original service. If it was then the usual “standing” question may be moot. They would have had to file that in the time period that expired.
This hearing may be the one that allows the case to go forward IF she crossed all her “t”’s and dotted all her I’s.
She is a pit bull that won’t let go, I give her that.
And the Constitution needs to be enforced as long as one true American still has blood being pushed through their heart!