Replies

Could someone explain this .... Is this good or bad? My wife wants to know.

It all depends on your point of view, and Judge Carter's point of view.

QOU WARRANTO (pp 4-8)
Plaintiff's argument is basically that Judge Carter should permit the quo warranto case to proceed in his California court is based on the argument that Eric Holder refused to file it there, and the DC courts (vested by statute with jurisdiction) won't hear it, citing to Judge Robertson's "silencing" of Hemenway in Hollister v. Soetoro.

So the question is whether Judge Carter will find that even though the relevant statute says that quo warrantos must be filed in DC, he will take the case anyway because Eric Holder refused to file it in DC and because Judge Robertson "silenced" Hemenway by imposing sanctions on him in Hollster. If you believe it is likely that Judge Carter will ignore the relevant statute "for the greater good," then the brief is great.

FOIA (pp 8-9)
Plaintiff's FOIA argument is basically that a few plaintiffs did file FOIA requests. And, Taitz, while not submitting formal FOIA requests, submitted requests to various agents through her multiple dossiers.

So the question is whether Judge Carter will find that even though the relevant statutes require FOIA plaintiffs to proceed through several FOIA-regulation steps (which are not alleged even with respect to the plaintiffs who did file requests), he has jurisdiction to accept their FOIA claims. If you believe it is likely that Judge Carter will ignore the relevant FOIA statutes and regulations "for the greater good," then the brief is great.

STANDING (pp. 8-13)
Here, Plaintiffs argue that all have "taxpayer" standing, and that some have standing under "oaths" or "constitutional duties" principles. Taitz cites several cases to support her position, including a couple that are no longer good law (because they were vacated, abrogated, or otherwise limited), but they have good statements about standing in them. She also makes a cogent argument that the taxpayer standing cases should be expanded to include this situation. (So far, with hundreds of cases being filed on the issue over the past decades, the only "taxpayer" standing principle that the Supreme Court has adopted is that taxpayers can sue to prevent government monies from being spent in ways that arguably violate the First Amendment prohibition against esablishment of state religion. However, lots of plaintiffs continue to attempt to have a court expand that limitation.)

So the question is whether Judge Carter will find that even though the cases she cites are distinguishable or no longer good law, he will use statements in those cases to rule for her. Also, will Judge Carter expand the general "taxpayer" standing status beyond establishment of religion cases to include this type of case. If you believe it is likely that Judge Carter will do that "for the greater good," then the brief is great.

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE (pp. 13-16)
I'm not sure I understand this argument, but it seems that Plaintiffs are arguing that Justice Taney's decision establishing the Political Question doctrine in Luther v. Borden was wrong (because in that case, Taney held that the political question doctrine precluded the court from hearing the case). Plaintiff's critcize the ruling as establishing a "bright line choice between political action by ballot and revolution, with no possibility of judicial intervention." Plaintiffs continue that even if the political question doctrine still applies to Article IV challenges, it does not apply to Article III challenges.

So the question is two-fold: Will this district judge hold that the Supreme Court decision in Luther v. Borden was incorrect and, if not, will Judge Carter find that even though the doctrine applies to Article IV challenges, it does not apply to Article III challenges. If you believe it is likely that Judge Carter will do that, then the brief is great.

TAXPAYER STANDING & PROTECTION FOR DISCREET & INSULAR MINORITIES (pp. 16-24)
Here, Plaintiffs return to standing, citing to Flast v. Cohen, the case finding that taxpayers have standing to challenge taxes spent in alleged violation of the establishment clause. (Discussed above in more detail.) Will Judge Carter expand that rule even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to do so? We won't know until October 5.

Plaintiffs also make the argument that they have standing under the First and Ninth Amendment, and should be protected as a discreet minority, citing to Wisconsin v. Yoder. Wisconsin v. Yoder was not a standing case, but the Supreme Court did find that the Amish were a "discreet and insular" religious minority, whose religious beliefs precluded compulsory education of children past 8th grade. Will Judge Carter find that minorites other than religious minorities are protected under Yoder and, if so, that Plaintiffs are a similar "discreet and insular" minority whose beliefs preclude them from taking orders from a President that they believe is not eligible under Article III? We won't know until October 5.