[Red Steel]

A 35 page response from Taitz.

[pissant]

BUMP

[ReneeLynn]

Okay. What? I think I have to be lawyer just to read the thread title. Someone break this down to non-lawyer English for me.

[Just A Nobody]

Ping

[Frantzie]

Anyone get the impression that a lot more legal help is coming out of the woodwork for this case with Judge Carter for Orly and I am sure that is also true on the Dark Side.

[jarofants]

Could someone explain this to a big fat dummie. Is this good or bad? My wife wants to know.

[so_real]

Thanks for posting this. I was looking for Taitz' response earlier. Eager to see how this fares.

[American Constitutionalist]

" Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll 1517. Where Congress has done absolutely nothing to investigate or prosecute a question "

Looks like the judge left room for doubt, and made up in his mind that Congress has done nothing to bring some kind of remedy to this.

[rolling_stone]

My first impression even though I am extremely tired is that this is a couple notches higher in quality that Orly had in the past. It expresses a lot of arguments that are backed in law and common sense. Among other things it challenged the past case dismissals based on standing, which by itself is new and unresolved. It gives Judge Carter a lot of options to hang is hat on to toss the MTD, By reference she also incorporated Kreeps response. Maybe just maybe Orly has calmed down a little and can see this thing through to a conclusion one way or the other. It is worth the read and expresses many thoughts people here have had about the government's and past judges cavalier attitude towards WE THE PEOPLE. I hope Judge Land in Georgia sleeps well after reading this,

We the people deserve to have our grievances heard and given a fair investigation. If not the government is useless to us. We are a Republic not a Democracy and the Constitution must stand.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Since the law today is anything the judges want it to be, the merits of the argument are irrelevant. But good luck anyway.

[trumandogz]

22 Days

[SvenMagnussen]

Out in 30 days:

The question is not one of precedent, the question is whether politics dictate the outcome in many or most Obama-related cases, where avoiding discovery and fact-finding is the primary (and outcome-determinative) goal. Plaintiff submits that if discovery is ever allowed in this case, it will be rapidly settled by the resignation or impeachment of the President.

[sneakers]

bump

[Uncle Chip]

"Plaintiffs’complaint and evidence allege and confirm that the Presidency in 2008 was taken by fraud, and not even by fraud in the counting of votes, but by fraud in the traditional common law sense of a material misrepresentation of an important fact upon which Plaintiffs could be reasonably expected to rely to their detriment, and to the detriment of constitutional government. The Constitution’s textual commitment of this responsibility is a responsibility that Congress has embraced. Both the House and the Sentate have standing committees with jurisdiction to decide questions relating to Presidential elections. Idem: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll 1517. Where Congress has done absolutely nothing to investigate or prosecute a question, Defendants’ position appears to be that this very inaction or acquiescence by Congress creates a presumption of legitimacy. Apparently, Defendants would have this Court believe, hold, rule, and accept that utter and complete inaction, stony silence even by the Vice‐President of an opposing party sitting as President of the Senate during the certification of the electoral vote to Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. §15, is and must be sufficient to satisfy the people that the President has met the Constitutional qualifications for office."

Well Done, Orly.

[oldfart]

bump

[snowsislander]

Is there a copy of this pdf available from somewhere other than scribd?

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[Sibre Fan]

UPDATE: In response to Orly's "Preliminary Response," Judge Carter issued a ruling today:
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ counsel Dr. Orly Taitz’s (“Taitz”) Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09 Motion to Dismiss (“Opposition”). The caption of the Opposition indicates that the Opposition is being filed “with reservation of rights to Respond further by filing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint on or before Friday October 2, 2009.”

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may only amend its pleading once as a matter of course. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1). After that party has amended its pleading once, the party may only further amend its pleading with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiffs have already filed a First Amended Complaint in this action, so unless they have obtained written consent from Defendants, Plaintiffs must file a regularly noticed motion asking for leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint. As the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is set for October 5, 2009, Plaintiffs’ request to file a Second Amended Complaint, even if filed today, will not be ready for hearing by October 5 and will therefore not affect that hearing.Link to Order

Translation: Orly must file a motion requesting leave to amend (and the Court must grant that motion) before she can file her Second Amended Complaint.

Additionally, the October 5, 2009 hearing on the pending Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint will proceed, and anything "new" in the Second Amended Complaint will not be considered on that date. (So her "preliminary response," along with Kreep's Opposition, will stand as the "opposition" to the Motion to Dismiss.)