Oh, this is cute! From the decision:
“Ironically enough, Ms. Taitz could never establish such an injury because—as far as the Court is aware—she was not elected president nor could she be as she is not a natural born citizen herself.”
parsy, who says the Judge is gigging her
zot.
Problem solved.
310 posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 3:38:46 PM by Jim Robinson (JUST VOTE THEM OUT! teapartyexpress.org)
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?