Posted on 08/28/2014 7:33:45 AM PDT by Elderberry
BROWNSVILLE —A federal judge Wednesday denied California attorney Orly Taitz’s request for a temporary restraining order against President Barack Obama and others regarding immigration policies and practices, but did not dismiss her lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at valleymorningstar.com ...
She is not going to be able to show that she personally has suffered significant damages, and she will be deemed not to have standing.
Taitz has the right message but she’s not the right messenger. I hope she gets some help to write her pleading more to the court’s preference.
I get a sense that the Judge is not unsympathetic to what she is trying to do. Being that the Judge is in Texas, he must be acutely aware of the chaos that Obama has brought to the border. Nonetheless, the Judge has to have something to hang his hat on if he rules for her. But he is requiring her to show personal damages, and she may not be able to come up with a suitable cause. However the Judge might be also leaving a small opening for someone else to file a claim. Maybe someone like a DHS employee who has contracted drug resistant TB from an illegal alien. But, since she is the one who must show personal damage, she might not be able to amend her complaint to include someone else. So, she might still be able to find someone else and file a new lawsuit on their behalf.
Don't worry, Orly will fix that. It won't be long before it all becomes clear.
Agree. . .maybe damage due to the president not enforcing laws in accordance with the constitution and that means every American has standing because the constitution is being harmed.
It doesn’t work that way. Article III Standing requires “particularized injury.” If everyone is injured, that doesn’t give a plaintiff standing to bring suit.
Dr. Taitz must show how the specific actions of the defendants injured her and she is alleging physical illness.
The defendants are: Jeh Johnson, the Department of Homeland Security secretary, Barack Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell and the U.S. Border Patrol, Rio Grande Valley Sector.
Yes, I agree with that.
Would someone who was victimized by illegal aliens be an injured party and therefore have standing. . .meaning the Big Zero knowingly released illegal criminals, those with a history of, say drunk driving, and said drug driving illegal alien hurt someone while drunk driving again.
Would that provide some sort of cover?
That’s quite a stretch, but in court, anything is possible, just not probable.
If NO illegal aliens were being apprehended and deported, then yeah, I think you could make a case. But the Border Patrol apprehends and ICE deports hundreds of thousands.
The government is not held to a 100% effectiveness standard. Here’s what the gub’mint attorneys will argue:
In FY 2013:
“ICE conducted a total of 368,644 removals.
ICE conducted 133,551 removals of individuals apprehended in the interior of the U.S.
82 percent of all interior removals had been previously convicted of a crime.
ICE conducted 235,093 removals of individuals apprehended along our borders while attempting to unlawfully enter the U.S.
59 percent of all ICE removals, a total of 216,810, had been previously convicted of a crime.
ICE apprehended and removed 110,115 criminals removed from the interior of the U.S.
ICE removed 106,695 criminals apprehended at the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the U.S.
98 percent of all ICE FY 2013 removals, a total of 360,313, met one or more of ICE’s stated civil immigration enforcement priorities.
Of the 151,834 removals of individuals without a criminal conviction, 84 percent, or 128,398, were apprehended at the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the U.S. and 95 percent fell within one of ICE’s stated immigration enforcement priorities.
The leading countries of origin for those removed were Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.”
One thing is for certain, no matter how this judge rules, the decision will be appealed.
In order to forward her case, Orly is going to have to prove that she contracted an illness directly from an illegal alien, and suffered a particularised injury. She has no such evidence, and needs to be aware that discovery is a two-way thing. The defence will be have access to all her client records, and I very much doubt Dr Taitz takes time out of her busy lawyering schedule in CA to see illegal aliens in her high priced dentistry practise. She has almost certainly lied in Federal Court and if she continues, it will not go well for her. She has also lied about her witnesses, who have not agreed to testify on her account.
Sounds good to me.
From Wikipedia
Born August 30, 1960 (age 54) Kishinev, Moldavian SSR, USSR (now Chișinău, Moldova)[1] Residence Laguna Niguel, California, U.S. Citizenship American[2] Alma mater Hebrew University Taft Law School Occupation Dentist, lawyer Known for Filing lawsuits challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States Political party No party preference[3][4] Spouse(s) Yosef Taitz Children 3 sons[5][6][7]
Website www.orlytaitzesq.com
Orly Taitz (born August 30, 1960)[8] is a figure in the "birther" movement, which challenges whether Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as President of the United States. She has also run for state-wide office in California three times and is a dentist, lawyer,[9] and former real estate agent
Orly Taitz was born to a Jewish family in Chișinău, Moldavian SSR in the Soviet Union (present-day Moldova).[7] Both of her parents were science teachers.[12] In 1981, Orly immigrated to Israel,[1] where she obtained a dentistry degree at Hebrew University.[1] In 1987, she met Yosef Taitz who proposed four months later. Orly immigrated to the United States in May 1987, marrying the Latvian-born[12] Yosef in Las Vegas.[7] Taitz became a naturalized United States citizen in 1992.[2][13] She received her law degree from Taft Law School and was admitted to practice law in California in December 2002.[12]
Taitz lives in Laguna Niguel, California[15] and owns dental practices in nearby Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita.[7] She has three sons,[7] holds a second degree black belt in Taekwondo, and speaks five languages: English, Hebrew, Romanian, Russian and Spanish
Taitz is not a very good lawyer. She seems to screw up on technicalities every time she files. Still, you have to admit she’s tenacious. Maybe we should start calling her Sisyphus Taitz.
Why not? Sysiphus never accomplished anything either.
I have no problem with Orly Taitz as a person and I have no problem with her passions and motivations. It’s her approach that is flawed. Although she holds a law degree, it is from Taft Law School in California which is a correspondence course. And it is not ranked well.
So her problem is her legal training. She practices dentistry to pay her bills but her practice of law is reprehensible.
Law is hard. And to do it well usually requires requisite brilliance and experience.
I don’t believe Orly has the right training, contacts, time or experience to do law well.
But she has the right motives and intentions. And she files suits against Obama because she can. If she loses she has her dentistry practice to fall back on.
Why don’t brilliant, experienced lawyers take on Obama? Because law is their living. Most can’t afford to throw the dice.
So it leaves only a few lawyers with the means or the time to go to court against Obama. Taitz just isn’t up to the job unfortunately.
But the tables are turning. This judge gave her a chance, another swing at bat. If the judge is willing to do that, it sends a signal that the judiciary is ready to nail Obama if the right counselor can be engaged.
agree with you 100%
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.