Posted on 03/02/2010 1:15:47 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
U.S. Attorneys with the Department of Justice have moved to dismiss Orly Taitz's Quo Warranto case for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, the U.S. Attorneys' Office asserts that any judicial or bar sanctions against Dr. Taitz are the consequences of her own actions.
"Although, to Defendant's knowledge, this is Dr. Taitz’s first case in which she serves as Plaintiff, this is not her first bite at the apple, or even her second: she has unsuccessfully represented plaintiffs in at least three judicial districts seeking to raise similar claims. In each of these cases, the United States district courts have declined to find jurisdiction and have denied relief similar to the ultimate relief sought here.
Dr. Taitz's Complaint suffers from exactly the same defects that doomed many of her previous litigation efforts. Simply put, her allegations about the President's citizenship are not a concrete and particularized injury, as required to establish standing under the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III, and the harms that she has suffered from judicial and/or bar sanctions for her conduct in litigation are the consequences of her own actions and not in any way traceable to any legal claim cognizable against Defendant."
As attachments to the Motion to Dismiss, the U.S. Attorneys' Office filed the dockets from Cook v. Good, Barnett v. Obama, and Rhodes v. McDonnell and a citation from Judge Clayton Land’s opinion in Rhodes v. McDonnell as examples of Dr. Taitz's failed litigation and contemptible conduct.
Dr. Taitz responded on her blog that she's too busy to look at the filings but will comment when she has a chance to read them.
Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied Dr. Taitz's motion to reinstate her appeal in Cook v. Good, which she filed late and printed double-sided in violation of court rules. The docket and the case are now closed.
True, but they are trying to show she does not have a good motive for doing this. Slightly relevant. Also, it is a sly way of telling the judge, as if he don’t already know, that if he leaves her in, it will turn into a Birther circus.
Birthers have hurt themselves with their attitudes and the way they have approached this. Many people believe that no matter what Obama presents, it won’t matter. Like giving a moon rock to a Moon Landing denier.
Birthers haven’t believed anything to date, so what good is a hearing? OTOH, the judge may go ahead, ask Obama for a certified COLB, and dismiss the claim.
parsy, who is betting, though, she gets trounced again
This is a new one. Do you have a good link?
parsy
Sure, Dr. Orly makes mistakes. We all do. But Dr. Orly is no dummy. How many of us could go to a foreign country, learn 5 languages, establish a successful dental practice, a successful real estate business AND pass the California state bar- one of the hardest in the U.S. to pass?
She may be a ‘mail order’ attorney and not a Harvard lawyer, but she IS an attorney with all the rights and privilages of a Harvard lawyer nevertheless!
The point is; she has the passion, the zeal, the courage of her convictions and the love of America and its freedoms (unlike many of our ‘great’ attorneys and ‘patriots’ who criticize her) that will not let her give up!
She is exhausted. She is nervous. She is frustrated. It is reported that she gets by on 4-5 hours of sleep per night, and her family is very worried about her health- as well as her safety.
She makes mistakes. But she will NOT give up. She will keep on until she gets it right.
I’m just screwing wit you. She is never going to get it right.
Orly is a nut. Isn’t Berg a truther? I read somewhere one of them is. Maybe him. If I am wrong, please let me know. I would suggest no one give their money to either of these people. free Republic or the Tea Party would probably be a lot better place to spend money.
And, Tru American Patriots don’t run off to the United Nations seeking protection.
parsy
You and Orly need to read the cases you cite instead of just cherry picking quotes that seem to agree with you.
The holding in that case is:
Other unusual situations calling for federal intervention might also arise, but there is no point in our attempting now to specify what they might be. It is sufficient for purposes of the present case to hold, as we do, that the possible unconstitutionality of a statute “on its face” does not, in itself, justify an injunction against good faith attempts to enforce it, and that appellee Harris has failed to make any showing of bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable relief. Because our holding rests on the absence of the factors necessary under equitable principles to justify federal intervention, we have no occasion to consider whether 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which prohibits an injunction against state court proceedings “except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress” would, in and of itself, be controlling under the circumstances of this case.
Or a real attorney with a real case.
Are you going to argue with something that an anonymous person sent to Orly in an email and that she published as fact?
ROTF Admits standing lol it corrects a typo referring to the defendant as "her" not "him".
Sven stop clutching for glass straws in a snowdrift.
LET HER FINISH.
No, all that tin foil will just take down the power grid or cause an EMP. We’ve already discussed this.
Orly has standing. Er, I mean she IS standing.
;p
“these are the types of things that allow the lefties to point at conservatives and holler nut case”
I never ceased to be amused by this line of reasoning. Conservatives should act (or not act)based upon how lefties will characterize those actions?
Major Stefan F. Cook would have a good case.
Don’t get to laughing again about all that! I was hoarse the next morning and my sides hurt. The EMP.....
parsy, who says you nailed that one
Reading them would be a good start. She doesn't seem to have read much else.
And what, given her track records, makes you think it is beyond Orly to sue herself? She has clearly caused herself specific harm, and would thus have standing.
Didn’t she actually try that argument in California?
I’m serious. I believe a judge at some point against to explain standing and she said “I’m standing right here and millions of Americans are standing with me.”
She’s cute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.