Skip to comments.Orly v Obama – Dismissed
Posted on 04/16/2010 12:06:30 PM PDT by Elderberry
click here to read article
Amazing how gleeful the after birthers are, high fiving each in mirht and joy. Very revealing.
“Can you translate that into American please?”
Sure, but that wouldn’t help you. You need the translation into stupid.
As Justice Thomas said this week...the court is ignoring this issue...
Well I can think of nobody more qualified to do that then you. Have at it.
Sorry. I don’t waste my time on stupid people.
You seem to make an exception for Orly Tatiz.
Nonny. Why don’t you quit when you’re behind?
ROTFLMAO! Well, if I ever look up and find you in the lead then maybe I will. Until then I'll continue to poke fun at your blind worship of Orly Taitz. Give her a call. Maybe she can give your teeth a cleaning. Or file a suit for you. Or something.
“Well, if I ever look up and find you in the lead...”
If you ever looked up, that would be a start.
I’m actually feeling kinda sad for you guys. Those feelings started on the 14th when the “Orly Wins” thread started and you all got your hopes up.
parsy, who hopes these feelings pass in a hurry
He who laughs last, laughs best.
Two ponies, actually:
1. EPIC FAIL of Obama DOJ’s 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 Obama’s 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.
Most of the claims were dismissed outright, e.g., mandamus isn’t a procedure open to Taitz, injury too generalized for standing etc. But the qui tam claim was essentially dismissed on a technicality. Has anyone else tried this approach? That is, if someone pursued a qui tam claim using the proper procedure, would it get any farther than these other suits?
Qui tam suits under False Claims Act seem to avoid the “standing” problem insofar as the harm alleged (e.g., misuse of public funds) does affect everyone equally rather than any particular taxpayer particularly. By definition, I believe any citizen is permitted to pursue a qui tam suit on behalf of government. So if such a suit could just get past the “standing” issue, could it then get into the “meat” of the issue such as being able to use discovery to force production of LFBC?
I think any of these methods could work IF there is a reason to open the door in the first place. Note that in the Florida affair, where Orly got sanctioned, the judge did review the birth certificate. (IIRC)
But as a practical matter, no judge is going to get involved in this without some real evidence that Obama is pulling a fast one. Look at the quo warranto. Again, IIRC, there is some discretion permitted a judge. But why would Lamberth use that discretion and permit the claim where the evidence is “He has 39 social security numbers.” Even Sankey, the Scotland Yard PI says that there is no proof Obama has anything to do with them.
What Orly is attempting to do is use the legal system to conduct discovery, and that is simply not what it is for. Step One should be building a good case that he was born in Kenya.
Imagine the legal system if Orly, or anybody, filed a suit and had the following:
1. A certified Kenyan BC
2. Affidavit from Hawaii DOH that the “long form” shows Obama born in Kenya.
3. Affidavit from friend of Grandma Dunham paid off Hawaiian DOH, and laughed about it.
4. Affidavit from a friend of Obama in college, that Obama used to laugh about he was born in Kenya, and granny paid off the clerks so he could be a citizen.
Go to court with that, or even 2 of them, and I think you have a whole new ballgame.
I was paraphrasing Lamberth who was paraphrasing his own DC Appeals Court when he said:
"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 then went to Andrade where I found what appears to me to be the "equity" exception to the requirement that Lamberth cited:
"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 parallel between the hypothetical situation as framed by the Andrade Court where the AG has a conflict of loyalty to the people he appointed under him is clearly analogous to the current AG or US Attorney who not only were appointed by Obama but who can be fired by Obama "at his pleasure" with no reason given. The Andrade Court says it "will not be barred from issuing" an "equity" injunction to protect quo warranto plaintiffs from having to submit to the discretion of an AG or US Attorney with a conflict of loyalty.
Thanks for posting Donofrio's three part quo warranto legal brief. I am going back through it to see how it compares to Lamberth's ruling.
When Donofrio first suggested that quo warranto was available to "attack" Obama, it was very controversial and Donofrio was elated when Judge Carter was the first federal judge to affirm that a quo warranto could be used against Obama (given that statutory procedures were followed and the plaintiff had standing) and the DC District Court was the proper venue.
How many times have Obots and "anti-birthers" declared that "impeachment is the only constitutional means of removing a sitting president"?
As of now two federal judges say that impeachment is NOT the only means of removing a president and that a proper quo warranto is available. These judges may, of course, be overruled by a different DC District judge, the DC Court of Appeals or SCOTUS if a subsequent case comes before the DC Circuit. But as of now I see Lamberth's ruling as a big win for Donofrio and for all eligibility challengers.
Berg has a Qui Tam case on appeal...
Any competent judge would have likewise sent Orly packing. She’s loony tunes.
You’re making an assumption that is illogical LJ. You don’t have to be an Obama supporter to realize that Taitz is an A1 nutjob.
I wasn’t referring to Orly at all.
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.