Skip to comments.Orly v Obama – Dismissed
Posted on 04/16/2010 12:06:30 PM PDT by Elderberry
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
v. Civil Action 10-151 (RCL)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, Defendant.
Before the Court is the defendants motion  to dismiss the first amended complaint and Christopher Strunks motion  to intervene. Also pending before the Court is the plaintiffs motion  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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
Two salient point by you that should be repeated:
- - - - -
“1. EPIC FAIL of Obama DOJs attempt to get Lamberth to rule that quo warranto doesn’t apply to a sitting POTUS. DOJ hoped to gain ruling that the Democrat dominated Congress had sole power to remove Obama via impeachment. DOJ failed to get that ruling. DOJ can’t even appeal this ommision by Lambreth because they “won” the dismissal, in my non-lawyer understanding.
2. Citation by Lamberth of Andrade which says an equity exception (to a prior ruling that quo warranto of a public official much be approved by AG or US Attorney) may allow/require the court to bypass the AG and US Attorney to grant quo warranto to an interested party if the AG or US Attorney have a conflict of interest, which Obamas AG and US Attorney explicitly have, given that they were appointed by Obama and serve at his discretion.
These are two big wins from this dismissal for eligibility verifiers.”
I seem to recall that you two may know how to e-mail Leo Donofrio. He might be interested in this thread and the discussion of use of "equity" by the DC Appeals Court in the Andrade case.
Leo was elated when Judge Carter refused to grant the DOJ claim that only impeachment could remove a sitting president and instead Carter affirmed Leo's theory that a quo warranto could be brought against Obama, but only in the DC District Court.
Leo did discuss Andrade in his 3-part legal brief on quo warranto, but did not discuss the "equity" comment in that decision, which I believe might interest Leo, if it hadn't come to his attention.
Now a second federal judge, Lamberth, has ignored a DOJ request in their Motion to Dismiss to rule that quo warranto can't be brought against a sitting president.
From the Lamberth ruling dismissing Taitz v. Obama:
"The Court of Appeals for this Circuit has held that a quo warranto action against a public official may be brought only by the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney. Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Wright, J.) (citing United States v. Carmody, 148 F.2d 684, 685 (D.C. Cir. 1945)). The Court of Appeals reasoned that this must be the case because challenges to authority by which a public office is held 'involve a right belonging to the whole body of the public which can be protected only by a public representative.' Carmody, 148 F.2d at 685."
I also found in Andrade the following explaining how "equity" could provide an "alternative" to quo warranto:
"The above procedure is cumbersome and could easily operate to deprive a plaintiff with an otherwise legitimate claim of the opportunity to have his case heard. For instance, the Attorney General was responsible for appointing appellees Diegelman and Lauer to their jobs. Requiring appellants to convince the Attorney General to file a quo warranto action on their behalf in this case would effectively bar their access to court."
"Given these restrictions, quo warranto is an extremely difficult and uncertain remedy for the type of claim at issue in this case. This court has held that equity will not be barred from issuing an injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers if the alternative remedy of quo warranto is inadequate. Columbian Cat Fanciers, Inc. v. Koehne, supra, 96 F.2d at 532."
The Andrade Court said "This court has held that equity will not be barred from issuing an injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers if the alternative remedy of quo warranto is inadequate." I wonder how Leo would interprete an implementation of this "alternative remedy" to quo warranto in terms of gaining discovery and a ruling on Obama's NBC eligibility consistent with and still under the quo warranto umbrella.
Just how far would this equity alternative to quo warranto go in the fact situation regarding Obama? Would the "injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers" apply to Obama or perhaps restrain invalidly appointed AG and US Attorney from failing to bring quo warranto or failing to permit an "interested party" to bring quo warranto?
I’ll email him a copy of the thread for you.
Gee, this is quite similar to what Obama himself did whenever he had elections earlier in his career.
Note that in the Florida affair, where Orly got sanctioned, the judge did review the birth certificate.
The judge actually held in his hands, a paper copy sent to him from Hawaii, a piece of paper that was the real true on file certificate?????
Wow. Never heard that before.
Are you sure?
IIRC, he looked at one of the FAKE birth certificates, I think the Bomford one. In California, I think that judge got a gander at both the Bomford and Kenyan ones. The point is, the court has no real reason to even look at the certificates because the issue was standing/jurisdiction/justicibility.
I contend if there was some substantial type evidence, the standing issue might either evaporate, or you would at least get a decision that made it plain something was fishy in the White House.
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.
But not ONE member of Americas most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.
Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup. The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated only by political self-preservation.
Americans keep asking what they can do because they see that none of their leaders are doing anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. Its the right question, because those leaders are NOT going to stop this thing.
WHO WILL SAVE FREEDOM?
A brave few This is how it was in the beginning, how it has always been and how it will be.
DR. ORLY TAITZ, Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, ALL OF WHOM HAVE MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP.
A PRECIOUS FEW, BUT THEY EXIST and the walls are indeed closing in on Obama and his evil cabal. IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FAIL TO GET BEHIND THESE BRAVE FEW WHO ARE SEEKING PEACEFUL REDRESS, ALL THE PEACEFUL OPTIONS WILL EVAPORATE AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED. WE WILL RETURN TO A PRE-1776 AMERICA OVERNIGHT..
Do YOU fear Obama?
A precious few, indeed. Lets get behind those few brave patriots who are out there in the trenches every day working to prove Obamas inelgibility:
Dr. Orly has put her lifes blood into this fight. SHE HAS MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP FROM COWARDLY REPUBLICANS AND THE SCOTUS.
Dr. Orly is the ONLY one out there in the trenches EVERY day hitting Obama on multiple fronts and trying to bring him down. It is reported that she is more than $8,000 in debt from using her own funds for expenses in her flights across the U.S for interviews, speeches, serving papers and meeting with officials.
She has even gone to Isreal and Russia to spread the message about Obamas inelgibility!
She states the case expertly, including the bc and natural born citizen aspect, when not abused by the U.S. state-controlled media. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132880
Sure, Dr. Orly makes mistakes. We all do. But Dr. Orly is no dummy. How many of us could go to a foreign country, learn 5 languages, establish a successful dental practice, a successful real estate business AND pass the California state bar- one of the hardest in the U.S. to pass?
She may be a mail order attorney and not a Harvard lawyer, but she IS an attorney with all the rights and privilages of a Harvard lawyer nevertheless!
The point is; she has the passion, the zeal, the courage of her convictions and the love of America and its freedoms (unlike many of our great attorneys and patriots who criticize her) that will not let her give up!
She is exhausted. She is nervous. She is frustrated. It is reported that she gets by on 4-5 hours of sleep per night, and her family is very worried about her health- as well as her safety.
She makes mistakes. But she will NOT give up. She will keep on until she gets it right.
So lets get behind this great little Russian refugee and great American patriot.
Stop tearing her apart. The Obots dont need our help.
The obots are scared to death of this little lady and her determination. Thats why they come out in droves all over the net on forums, chat rooms and even the national news to attack and ridicule.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -Orwell
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.