“10) Has any Obama eligibility lawsuit resulted in a victory of any kind on any level for any plaintiff? Yes or No?”
Obama’s DOJ argued to Judge Carter that quo warranto could not be brought against a sitting POTUS. DOJ lost, and Judge Lamberth has concurred with Judge Carter.
Both are key victories for eligibility activists and both were the result of cases brought by the Quixotic Orley Taitz.
With Democrats in control of the impeachment process in the House and able to block a conviction in the Senate, even if GOP gets a nominal majority in 2010, the only vulnerability that Obama has is to quo warranto, and thanks to Kreep and Taitz that door has been kicked open.
The barrier of having to get past Obama appointed AG and US Attorney may well be circumvented by a willingness of the DCDC to cite and apply the Andrade assertions that:
“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.”
and
“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.”
Applying Andrade to the current situation, requiring appellants such as Lakin or the Chrysler dealers to convince the Attorney General or US Attorney to file a quo warranto action on their behalf against Obama when they were appointed by Obama would effectively bar their access to court.
“Judge David O. Carter betrays the Nation!
DISMISSES CASE WHICH SOUGHT REMEDY FOR MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD IN 2008”
by John Charlton
The Post & Email
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/29/judge-david-o-carter-betrays-the-nation/
I will only add that BOTH Judge Carter AND Judge Lamberth DISMISSED the Obama eligibility lawsuits that were before them. Judge Lamberth went one step further by ruling that ONLY the Attorney General of the United States OR the US Attorney for the District of Columbia can file quo warranto against a federal official in US Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.
He specifically pointed out in his decision that since Ms. Taitz is neither the Attorney General nor the US Attorney, she CANNOT bring quo warranto in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
I quote Judge Lamberth again: “Because Ms. Taitz is neither the Attorney General of the United States nor the US Attorney 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. Accordingly Ms. Taitz’s quo warranto claims are dismissed for lack of standing.” See Fed.R.Civ.P.(12)(b)(1).”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0
“Judge Dismisses Suit By Birther Activist Orly Taitz”
I will quote just one paragraph from the following linked article: “Lamberth wrote that only the U.S. attorney general or a U.S. attorney’s office can ask a court to file a writ of quo warranto, which according to Black’s Law Dictionary is a “common-law writ used to inquire the authority by which a public office is held.”
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/04/judge-dismisses-suit-by-birther-activist-orly-taitz.html
I am glad to see you still have no comeback for:
“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.”