Uummmmmmmm Obot, that wasn’t the topic that BP2 pointed out in his post to you. The post was about why the court system comes up with excuses not to go to trial on the merits.
BP2: And why? Is it on the Merits?
Or is it something else, like:
— Standing
— Jurisdiction, and most importantly
— Political Question
You think it is all about being the party hack don’t you? There are numerous reasons that the US judiciary will not take the eligibility cases, whether they were appointed by Demos or Repubs, but they will not elucidate those to the public. However, they do impose the legal blocks above that BP2 has showed you.
Here are verbatim words from Judge Lamberth’s opinion.
“Because Ms. Taitz is neither the Attorney General of the United States nor the United States Attorney General for the District of Columbia, she does not have standing to bring a quo warranto action challenging a public official’s right to hold office.1 Accordingly Ms. Taitz’s quo warranto claims are dismissed for lack of standing.”
We see Judge Lamberth clearly say she lacks standing not what you think or implies why he did not.
Judge Lamberth issued separate opinions on each aspect of the case. He did not lump all the charges together and dismiss them all for lack of standing. He dismissed some of the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and he dismissed others for lack of legal merit to that particular claim.
Here’s an example of Judge Lamberth’s opinion based on the merit of the claim by Ms. Taitz on the RICO Act claim and I quote directly from the Judge’s verdict. THIS IS A VERDICT ISSUED ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM.
“The Court first addresses the predicate acts Ms. Taitz has alleged. First of all, neither violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 nor 42 U.S.C. §1985 are “racketeering activities” which could be the basis for Ms. Taitz’s RICO claim. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(a) (defining which offenses are racketeering activities). They thus are not actionable as violations of section 1962. With respect to the various allegations of fraud—and fraud indeed is a predicate act for purposes of RICO liability—Ms. Taitz has failed to sufficiently plead her claims. To the degree a RICO complaint sounds in fraud, the plaintiff must meet Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirements. See Farlow v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 956 F.2d 982, 989 (10th Cir. 1992). As the Court observed earlier, Ms. Taitz’s fraud claims fail to even meet the standards of Rule 8, much less the heightened requirements of Rule 9(b). Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1954. As such, she has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and her RICO claims will be dismissed. FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”
As such, she has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and her RICO claims will be dismissed.
And "Ms. Taitz has failed to sufficiently plead her claims. To the degree a RICO complaint sounds in fraud,..."
You're still an Obot clown. When we mean merits of the case against Obama - means going to TRIAL. A full blown case where witness and discovery can be presented and crossed examined. It is in the judge's prerogative to take a case to trial even if even he thinks that the plaintiff has no standing if he believe justice will still be served. For obvious reason they have not taken that course.
There has been no trial to flesh out those CLAIMS. Without discovery in this case against Obama who hides and controls all the relevant facts against him in the Executive Branch and other institutions around the world, the case is not going anywhere, unless there are leaks, and if whistle blowers come forward.
The legal definition
"on the merits adj. referring to a judgment, decision or ruling of a court based upon the facts presented in evidence and the law applied to that evidence. A judge decides a case "on the merits" when he/she bases the decision on the fundamental issues and considers technical and procedural defenses as either inconsequential or overcome. Example: An attorney is two days late in filing a set of legal points and authorities in opposition to a motion to dismiss. Rather than dismiss the case based on this technical procedural deficiency, the judge considers the case "on the merits" as if this mistake had not occurred."
According to Lamberth, Taitz failed to state the merits of her claims...as in standing. She has no merits to her claim because of her lack of standing according to Lamberth. Or in the RICO part, her evidence didn't rise to the level in the opinion of the court to go forthwith.
In other words, that is a "technical procedural deficiency" as the definition above says.
If this case goes forward and overcomes those technical procedural deficiencies, we may get to see what Obama is hiding from the public and the courts to what his legitimate factual record as in:
-The Hawaiian birth records
- border entry records
- State Department records
- Passport records
- Education records
- Foreign government records
- Other private records
Hey Soros and DNC operatives, you pay this Obot clown too much whatever it is.