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 ...
By injured interested party I was using shorthand for a party with “standing” to bring quo warranto which would still include:
1. McCain and Palin plus the minor national party candidates like Keyes who lost the election would be perfect because they can claim to have been personally displaced by Obama and Biden. This would not be the same case that Keyes and Taitz lost in CA because it would have to be brought in the DC District Court.
2. Persons personally injured by an action taken by Obama’s administration. This would be a “but for” injury. But for the fact that Obama usurped the presidency as an ineligible candidate, he would not have been able to have nationalized Chrysler and his Car Czar would not have shut down hundreds of dealers who now have quo warranto standing to demand that Obama prove his eligibility.
Also, but for Obama’s ineligible usurpation he would not have been CIC and would not have issued orders to LTC Lakin, which Lakin could not in good conscience obey under his oath to defend the Constitution.
Lamberth said that the appeals court over him said all quo warranto demands against public officials (including Obama, as Lamberth didn't exclude him) must go through the AG or US Attorney. But as I pointed out, when you read the case Lamberth cited, Andrade, the DC Appeals Court said that “equity” would allow the court to bypass the AG and US Attorney if they had a conflict of interest. Lamberth didn't reach that issue because Taitz clearly lacked standing as an interested party under the quo warranto statute.
Well, Lamberth almost had to consider granting standing to Taitz as a party injured by Obamacare, as she tried to claim at the last minute, but Obama hadn't signed the bill when the case reached the judge, to he got to dodge that claim of injury by Taitz. The judge's scramble to correctly prevent a claim of injury caused by Obamacare may show the way for millions of parties injured by Obamacare to file quo warranto claims!
All of this points up the fact that Taitz, for all of her bumbling and mangling of the statutes and procedures has blazed a trail for more competent, experienced attorneys by getting yet another federal judge on the record revealing the defenses that must be breached to prove Obama’s ineligibility.
Thank you very much for your clear explanation. My feeble non-legal mind much appreciates it.
The distinction between core and penumbra is associated with the work of H.L.A. Hart. See H.L.A.
HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (2d ed. 1997).
can you find this? it is referenced to:
What is the legal significance of what we can call the natural born citizen clause?
Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States of American is a natural born
Illinois Public Law and Legal Theory
Research Papers Series No. 08-17
September 5, 2008
Originalism and the Natural
Born Citizen Clause
Lawrence B. Solum*
*John E. Cribbet Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network
Electronic Paper Collection:
“if the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney refuse to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. Id. § 16-3503. Ms. Taitz, having contacted the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and the Attorney General of the United States, and not having received an answer to her satisfaction, has elected to seek the writ on her own. Shortly after she filed suit, the government moved to dismiss.”
She should have applied for leave to issue the writ, instead she went ahead and issued it without leave. Simple procedural error. Now apply for leave. If the Judge doesn’t grant it, apply Misprision of felony/treason to him.
That seems to sum up all of Orly's legal antics in a nutshell.
At least she is doing the work, and she is getting closer each time.
Doesn’t change the fact that Obamas days in illegal office are shortening.
Obamas local Law College forget to mention Vattel in a handy late 2008 dogs breakfast of an opinion.
Is it possible for one to get closer to complete failure? :D
Tesibria maintains that list.
You “know” it, but the courts do not. That is why you keep losing...you need to read what they say.
“All of this points up the fact that Taitz, for all of her bumbling and mangling of the statutes and procedures has blazed a trail for more competent, experienced attorneys by getting yet another federal judge on the record revealing the defenses that must be breached to prove Obamas ineligibility.
On the contrary, the court has been clear in stating that an interested party may, when granted permission, institute quo warranto proceedings in the name of the United States. Orly was refused permission. Thank goodness.
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application ...
In Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 at 546 (1915), the Supreme Court interpreted the role of the AG and US attorney as follows:
The District Code still treats usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. It permits those proceedings to be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the attorney for the District of Columbia. By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper. But there are so many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office that the Code not only does not authorize a private citizen, on his own motion, to attack the incumbents title, but it throws obstacles in the way of all such private attacks. It recognizes, however, that there might be instances in which it would be proper to allow such proceedings to be instituted by a third person, but it provides that such third person must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the consent of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia before he can use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings.
Taitz didn't get the consent of the relevant law officers of the government, and she didn't even make an effort to get the consent of the Supreme Court of DC before she filed.
Yep. She’s an incompetent, attention whore, with schizophrenic tendencies. As I’ve said before, she couldn’t properly file her paperwork or interpret a judicial ruling if Chief Justice Roberts himself explained everything to her word for word in Russian.
Getting closer each time? Orly Taitz? ROTFLMAO!!!!
Can you translate that into American please?
Here, yet again, while failing to gain standing, Taitz has elicited from a second federal district court judge a clear procedural path forward for a quo warranto eligibility challenge by an “interested party” who meets criteria for standing, criteria which Lamberth also further clarified with citations.
In addition, in a crucial victory for eligibility challengers and a defeat for the DOJ, Lamberth refused to affirm the DOJ contention that a sitting POTUS is immune from quo warranto attack.
Specifically Lamberth, like Carter, refused to affirm the DOJ contention in their MTD that it would be a violation of separation of powers for the courts to permit quo warranto.
Taitz has also elicited from Lamberth a non-affirmation of the DOJ contention that eligibility of the POTUS was inherently a “political question” exclusively reserved in the Constitution to non-judicial actors in the electoral process and the Congress.
Taitz elicited from Lamberth his citation of Andrade which explicitly points to an "equity" exception to the exclusive power of the AG or US Attorney to bring quo waranto against a public official when the AG or US Attorney have a conflict of interest regarding the public official whose credentials are being challenged.
For all of these reasons, this dismissal is a big victory for eligibility challengers because a second federal judge (this time in the relevant DC Circuit) has preserved quo warranto as a vector of attack against a sitting president!
Without this imperfect (OK terribly flawed) action by Taitz, this line of defense by Obama and the DOJ (claiming that quo warranto could never be be brought against a sitting PUTUS) would not have been breached. LTC Lakin, Keyes, Donofrio's Chrysler Dealers or now lots of plaintiffs injured by Obamacare may well be able to make use of this breach in the Obama defenses.
Thank you for the explanation.
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.