Main Menu

Order to show cause in Taitz v. Johnson

US District Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued an order on August 1 to the Department of Homeland Security (Health and Human Services, Barack Obama and the Brownsville Station of the Border Patrol) to show cause why emergency relief requested by plaintiff Orly Taitz should not be granted. Taitz decided to intervene on behalf of people who are afraid of disease from Guatemalan children who arrived in the US without documentation and turned themselves in at the border. Taitz wants quarantine and other emergency measures as detailed in her complaint.

Certain conservative web sites (for example, Conservative Patriot) are very excited about the progress of this case, Taitz v. Johnson, taking the order to show cause as a strong sign that the judge is on the verge of ruling in Taitz’ favor. The government has until August 11 to respond.

And the winner is for best reason for dismissing a lawsuit (opening sealed envelope): lack of standing.

I returned from Mexico myself last week, and so I know that the time when I had to show my passport to American Immigration officials was after I was already physically in the United States. I understand that these kids are not sneaking across the border, but entering the country and turning themselves in.

Update:

The Government responds

Print Friendly

,

87 Responses to Order to show cause in Taitz v. Johnson

  1. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 3, 2014 at 3:34 pm #

    I still haven’t seen anything from Taitz’s direction that she has provided ANY authority or standing or way for this to be effected for her action, and no reason other than she’s skeared!!!! and needs something else to grandstand with.

  2. avatar
    ArthurWankspittle August 3, 2014 at 4:04 pm #

    Orly will have standing as soon as her doctor’s report comes back identifying the strain of TB she caught from the little Guatemalan girl Taitz was treating pro bono in FEMA camp 13. Orly probably then just needs to notify her patients, various health boards, and her insurers that she’s contagious, and stop working. Of course the biggest problem will be getting anyone to believe she treated someone who wasn’t white.
    AW (with tongue firmly in cheek).

  3. avatar
    DaveH August 3, 2014 at 4:25 pm #

    As a health professional, I am positive that Orly has already shut down her dental practice.

    If she believes that she may have been infected with tuberculosis, I think she has an obligation to stop treating patients until she has gone through an incubation period to make sure that she is not infected.

  4. avatar
    Bob August 3, 2014 at 4:38 pm #

    Pretending she’s worried about catching TB (while sitting in a house in California looking at a computer screen) is Lady Liberty’s form of political activism.

  5. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 3, 2014 at 5:28 pm #

    Well, if Orly was actually a health PROFESSIONAL, and honest, and conscientious, and telling the truth, then yes, that would be true, but since she is none of the four, guess where we are?

    DaveH:
    As a health professional, I am positive that Orly has already shut down her dental practice.

    If she believes that she may have been infected with tuberculosis, I think she has an obligation to stop treating patients until she has gone through an incubation period to make sure that she is not infected.

    DaveH:
    As a health professional, I am positive that Orly has already shut down her dental practice.

    If she believes that she may have been infected with tuberculosis, I think she has an obligation to stop treating patients until she has gone through an incubation period to make sure that she is not infected.

  6. avatar
    Bernard Sussman August 3, 2014 at 7:06 pm #

    The case might be dismissed for Taitz’s lack of standing — but it might actually succeed even though cursed by the presence of Taitz. The health concerns of these hundreds of children – happening while the public is in a panic about Ebola patients being brought to the US – will strike a humane chord somewhere in the government and somebody will decide that, yes, the kids should be checked out medically before being allowed to mingle with others. I regard this as a good thing to do, not a cruel or discriminatory act.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 3, 2014 at 7:37 pm #

    According to published studies, tuberculin-positive persons are relatively resistant to reinfection. Taitz didn’t disclose whether she is tuberculin-positive or not. If I had to guess, I’d say she is.

    DaveH: As a health professional, I am positive that Orly has already shut down her dental practice.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 3, 2014 at 7:38 pm #

    This morning’s sermon was on compassion.

  9. avatar
    DaveH August 3, 2014 at 8:16 pm #

    I was being facetious. I read the so called complaint and saw that she had included that she went to a doctor to get a chest x-ray and complained that she had developed a “persistent cough”. And of course this is supposedly to show that she had been injured so she would have standing.

    To Bernard, I don’t see how this case can succeed since Orly can’t get the relief she is asking for. These kids are being held in crowded conditions from what I’ve read and seen and the only people coming in contact with them are border patrol agents and health care professionals. Orly acts as if they’re bringing these kids in and then just releasing them on the streets.

    I guess we’ll see, though.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    According to published studies, tuberculin-positive persons are relatively resistant to reinfection. Taitz didn’t disclose whether she is tuberculin-positive or not. If I had to guess, I’d say she is.

  10. avatar
    Georgetown JD August 3, 2014 at 9:11 pm #

    An Order to Show Cause does not shift the burden of proof. Taitz still bears that burden to show why relief should be granted.

    Of course, she must first establish standing and overcome other jurisdictional barriers before that question is even reached.

  11. avatar
    Rickey August 3, 2014 at 10:42 pm #

    Bernard Sussman:
    The case might be dismissed for Taitz’s lack of standing — but it might actually succeed even though cursed by the presence of Taitz.The health concerns of these hundreds of children – happening while the public is in a panic about Ebola patients being brought to the US – will strike a humane chord somewhere in the government and somebody will decide that, yes, the kids should be checked out medically before being allowed to mingle with others.I regard this as a good thing to do, not a cruel or discriminatory act.

    It’s already being done.

    Upon their arrival into one of the HHS’ shelters, the children are provided with a complete medical examination within 48 hours. This examination includes a general physical exam or medical screening and is conducted by either a doctor or nurse practitioner. All children receive age appropriate care including vaccinations as well as screening for tuberculosis. – Mark H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

  12. avatar
    Bernard Sussman August 4, 2014 at 12:57 am #

    Thank you Rickey.

  13. avatar
    Paper August 4, 2014 at 1:06 am #

    Ours was on superabundance (fishes and loaves).

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    This morning’s sermon was on compassion.

  14. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 4, 2014 at 7:29 am #

    Notorial Dissent:
    I still haven’t seen anything from Taitz’s direction that she has provided ANY authority or standing or way for this to be effected for her action, and no reason other than she’s skeared!!!! and needs something else to grandstand with.

    Federal Judge Andrew Hanen issued an order to show cause for Barack Obama, for Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of the Secretary of Homeland Security, for Sylvia Burwell, the Seretary of Health and Human Services to Show Cause

    “4. Taitz is seeking an order by the court deeming DACA (deferred action for child arrivals) memorandum by Obama, which defers deportations of illegals, to be unconstitutional and unlawful and null and void.”

    28 U.S. Code § 1331 – Federal question

    The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

    In Buckley v. Valeo, Senator James L. Buckley and Eugene J. McCarthy, et al. sued the Honorable Francis R. Valeo, Secretary, United States Senate, et al. alleging a Section of the FEC Act of 1974 concerning appointments to the FEC board violated the U.S. Constitution.

    Senator Buckley sought declaratory relief under the Separation of Powers doctrine … only the President can appoint members to the FEC board after seeking an advisory opinion and consent of the Senate pursuant to Appointments Clause.

    Like Buckley, Orly is seeking declaratory relief under a Separation of Powers doctrine … pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, only the Congress has Constitutional authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

    Orly alleged Obama’s DACA memorandum is unconstitutional, therefore she has standing to sue.

  15. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 4, 2014 at 8:00 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Orly alleged Obama’s DACA memorandum is unconstitutional, therefore she has standing to sue.

    That’s really stupid.

    She can (and often does) allege any damn thing she wants; making an allegation does not magically confer standing upon the accuser.

    If I thought you actually believed your own spew, I’d have to conclude you’re an Orly-class terrible lawyer.

  16. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 4, 2014 at 9:04 am #

    Bonsall Obot: That’s really stupid.

    She can (and often does) allege any damn thing she wants; making an allegation does not magically confer standing upon the accuser.

    If I thought you actually believed your own spew, I’d have to conclude you’re an Orly-class terrible lawyer.

    I firmly believe in the Ninth Amendment. I, and everyone else subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, possess a prenumbra of God-given rights; whereby some of the rights, but not all of those rights, have been enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. The people have delegated a limited number of those rights, privileges and duties to the U.S. federal government to provide for the common defense of the States that have united.

    The U.S. federal government forfeits their Constitutional authority after it has been given notice of a violation of the Eligibility Clause and fails or refuses to investigate a violation of the Constitution after assumption of the Office of the President of the United States who naturalized in 1983. I believe the Ninth Amendment gives me or anyone else subject to the jurisdiction the right to demand any executive level federal officer investigate a claim of presidential ineligibility to provide me with immunity and other relief if the President is, in fact, Constitutionally disabled.

    For some oddball reason, you seem threatened by the fact I object to an ineligible President making Appointments, signing legislation into law and issuing executive orders that I object to. You’re not required to object. You’re not required to seek immunity from the actions of the ineligible President. Why are you so angry I object to violations of the Constitution and seek immunity from the actions of a usurper?

    I want to opt out of Obamaland or America 2.0. I choose to continue to support old America with the U.S. Constitution fully and completely supported. You can have Obamaland or America 2.0. Good luck to you. You should start with a constitution. Last I heard, Obamaland or America 2.0 just makes stuff up as it goes and rejects the parts of the U.S. Constitution that it disagrees with.

  17. avatar
    DaveH August 4, 2014 at 9:22 am #

    It’s obvious that you don’t know what usurper means. From what I saw in two elections, President Obama received a majority of the electoral votes in addition to the popular vote and no one in Congress objected.

    Now, if another person had actually won and had assumed the position of president and then Obama took the office illegally, then he would be a usurper.

    And as I am sure it has been explained to you time and time again, President Obama is most certainly eligible to serve as President since he is a natural born citizen. Just because birthers prefer to redefine what NBC means does not make it so. I think you followed Orly down the same rabbit hole.

    No on here is threatened by your ideas because they are absurd and beyond stupid. Even IF it was later found that Obama was not eligible to serve, that would not cause all of his appointments or bills he signed into law to become null and void.

    SvenMagnussenFor some oddball reason, you seem threatened by the fact I object to an ineligible President making Appointments, signing legislation into law and issuing executive orders that I object to. You’re not required to object. You’re not required to seek immunity from the actions of the ineligible President. Why are you so angry I object to violations of the Constitution and seek immunity from the actions of a usurper?

    I want to opt out of Obamaland or America 2.0. I choose to continue to support old America with the U.S. Constitution fully and completely supported. You can have Obamaland or America 2.0. Good luck to you. You should start with a constitution. Last I heard, Obamaland or America 2.0 just makes stuff up as it goes and rejects the parts of the U.S. Constitution that it disagrees with.

  18. avatar
    realist August 4, 2014 at 9:23 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    The U.S. federal government forfeits their Constitutional authority after it has been given notice of a violation of the Eligibility Clause and fails or refuses to investigate a violation of the Constitution after assumption of the Office of the President of the United States who naturalized in 1983. I believe the Ninth Amendment gives me or anyone else subject to the jurisdiction the right to demand any executive level federal officer investigate a claim of presidential ineligibility to provide me with immunity and other relief if the President is, in fact, Constitutionally disabled.

    Out of which orifice, exactly, do you come up with this and the other ridiculous bull you spew?

  19. avatar
    Andrew Morris August 4, 2014 at 9:25 am #

    The problem with Sven’s argument is that the Constitution sets out ways in which these challenges play out. He’s also wrong, because it isn’t open to anyone to make a claim of ineligibility. And realistically, with a population of 330 million (or 372 million, if you believe Orly) the country would grind to a halt if anyone could demand these “investigations”.

  20. avatar
    John Reilly August 4, 2014 at 9:32 am #

    The investigation of Pres. Obama’s eligibility has already been done. Twice. By Congress. That no member thought the issue deserved any review does not mean that the country must grind to a halt every time a Moldovan dentist who obtained her citizenship, if at all, by marriage, is utter nonsense.

    Sven continues to refuse to discuss the actual provisions of the Constitution on how a person becomes President.

  21. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 4, 2014 at 9:55 am #

    Exactly no one is “threatened” by your ridiculous whining, son. Your misunderstanding of the Constitution is your burden.

  22. avatar
    Thomas Brown August 4, 2014 at 9:57 am #

    The Constitution IS fully supported, jackass. We have a Supreme Court and we obey its decisions on constitutionality whether we like them or not. If we don’t like laws we try to have them amended or repealed. We work though the system God and the Founders gave us.

    Not like you. You want to elevate your opinion above that of the Justices we hired to judge these things. What a pompous, pathetic megalomaniac you are.

    We do not talk about “America 2.0″ or armed insurrection. We work within the system. Only jackasses and cowards (and allegedly pedophiles) try to do an end-run around it.

    Boy, just wait ’til there’s another Republican president. (It might be a while.) Some people like Doc are more moral than I am, but less evolved wranglers like me are considering doing exactly the same things you’ve been doing to Obama to him or her. In spades, so to speak.

    Spreading the word that he or she is not really the president, and that no legislation he or she signed is really law. Urging our armed forces to remove him or her by force. Announcing that Blue States can nullify any Republican laws and just ignore them. Form militias to threaten Republicans in office and Federal employees doing their jobs. Claim all elections won by an R have been stolen. Insult your President’s family. Claim we don’t really know who he or she is. Refuse to believe any documentation thereof. Violently criticize him or her for the exact thing we’ve done before. Criticize (heck, sue) him or her for either doing or not doing the exact same thing. Demand investigations into any incident like Benghazi we know are groundless, but which will try to crucify him or her in the court of public opinion anyway.

    Sound good, perv? Well, you set the damn precedent, so how could you complain?

  23. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 4, 2014 at 10:28 am #

    SvenMagnussen: possess a prenumbra of God-given rights

    First, it’s “penumbra”. And did you really mean “half-shadow”? I suppose you meant to say “plethora” (“a lot”, “many”). Using technical terms without really understanding them makes you look even dumber than usual.

    SvenMagnussen: Obamaland or America 2.0 just makes stuff up as it goes and rejects the parts of the U.S. Constitution that it disagrees with

    No, that would be birthers (who also made up many other claims w.r.t. the Constitution, like the infamous “illegal ticket” claim that tries an end-run around the 25th Amendment which clearly means Biden would be Prez if Obama was found to be ineligible).

  24. avatar
    Rickey August 4, 2014 at 10:40 am #

    realist: Out of which orifice, exactly, do you come up with this and the other ridiculous bull you spew?

    Sven is now veering off into sovereign citizen territory.

    And of course he has no more evidence today that Obama was naturalized in 1983 then he had when he first began spinning his tall tales about refugee status, etc. Which, precisely, is no evidence at all.

  25. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 4, 2014 at 11:27 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    I firmly believe in the Ninth Amendment.

    That’s adorable, but it doesn’t say what you think it does.

    SvenMagnussen:

    The U.S. federal government forfeits their Constitutional authority after it has been given notice of a violation of the Eligibility Clause

    This is patently false; nothing in the Constitution even remotely alludes to such a forfeit. You made this up out of whole cloth, and that’s putting it mildly.

    SvenMagnussen:

    and fails or refuses to investigate a violation of the Constitution after assumption of the Office of the President of the United States who naturalized in 1983.

    Again, patently false; Barack Obama, 44th President of these United States, was born in Hawai’i 53 years ago today, said birth being amply documented by the state of Hawai’i and by contemporaneous newspaper accounts. He was, by dint of his birth in Hawai’i AND by dint of being born to a US citizen, a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. He never naturalized. That is a Birfer myth. You fail.

    SvenMagnussen:

    I believe the Ninth Amendment gives me or anyone else subject to the jurisdiction the right to demand

    Hold it right there, son.

    To the extent that you have a right to petition the government, yes, you have the right to “demand” anything your racist little heart desires.

    However, you seem to believe that you also possess the “right” to have your “belief” accorded the force of law, and boy, am I here to disabuse you of THAT notion.

    See, you believe things that just aren’t true. And no person nor any government on earth is required to dance in accordance with your racist fantasies or your misunderstanding of the law.

    Yes, you have the “right to demand.” No one is obliged to take you seriously.

    By the way, most of us learn by the age of six that our beliefs do not always accord with reality. Your mental and emotional immaturity are your burden and the burden of your loved ones, not the rest of the world.

    SvenMagnussen:

    For some oddball reason, you seem threatened

    As previously noted, son, exactly no one is “threatened” by your lunacy. We are laughing at you.

    SvenMagnussen:

    by the fact I object to an ineligible a black President

    Fixed that for you.

    SvenMagnussen: .

    Why are you so angry I object to violations of the Constitution and seek immunity from the actions of a usurper a black man occupying the WHITE House?

    Again, fixed. And again, don’t confuse mocking and ridicule for anger. You’re not worth getting angry over, pumpkin.

    SvenMagnussen:

    I want to opt out of Obamaland or America 2.0.

    Well, if you insist.
    Here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?
    Come again when you can’t stay so long.

    I will gladly drive you to the airport.

  26. avatar
    Keith August 4, 2014 at 11:56 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The U.S. federal government forfeits their Constitutional authority after it has been given notice of a violation of the Eligibility Clause and fails or refuses to investigate a violation of the Constitution after assumption of the Office of the President of the United States who naturalized in 1983.

    Wrong. Fully, Completely, and Constitutionally WRONG.

    Have you forgotten that little thing quaintly described as “innocent until PROVEN guilty”?

    ‘given notice’ doesn’t cut it Sven. Anybody can ‘give notice’ about anything anytime anywhere. Not all claims are created equal, and not all crackpots are worth the time of day.

    I believe the Ninth Amendment gives me or anyone else subject to the jurisdiction the right to demand any executive level federal officer investigate a claim of presidential ineligibility to provide me with immunity and other relief if the President is, in fact, Constitutionally disabled.

    First the Ninth Amendment is not a blank check for anyone to claim the existence of any right they want to assert. What you ‘believe’ and what reality imposes on you might just very well be diametrically opposed.

    I happen to believe that every human being should be able to access affordable health care and that Governments have a crucial role in ensuring the delivery of that right. Further, I would argue that my belief is more firmly grounded in the Constitution than your belief.

    The Constitution specifically defines how Presidents can be removed from office, and who is responsible for ‘investigating’ problems; that process does not involve ‘any executive level federal officer’ investigating every wild ass claim by anyone who wakes up and finds enlightenment in the leaves in the bottom of their morning tea cup.

    On the other hand, the Constitution specifically states that it was established

    in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    While the Preamble cannot be used to ‘find’ new rights to assert under the 9th Amendment, it can inform us about where to look for those rights. Universally affordable health care directly answers to at least 4 of the 6 reasons given for the very existence of the Constitution.

    Your belief of a new found right under the 9th Amendment to claim authority to ‘give notice’ and have Executive Officers take up your cause and investigate has absolutely no foundation in the Constitution, however tenuous, and runs counter the very idea of having a Government in the first place. It does not contribute to domestic tranquility, nor establish justice, nor promote the general welfare to have “Executive level officers” dropping what ever it is they do in order to investigate the unsupported allegations of 350 million individuals who think they have the right to ‘give notice’ and expect their claims to be investigated.

    It just isn’t the way the world works Sven, and it would be far, far from a ‘more perfect union’ if it did.

  27. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 4, 2014 at 11:56 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I object to an ineligible President making Appointments, signing legislation into law and issuing executive orders that I object to.

    Most of us would object to ANY INELIGIBLE POTUS making Appointments, signing legislation into law and issuing executive orders, even if we agreed with them.

    But under our Constitution, unless the SCOTUS declares otherwise, it is up to the Congress to settle questions of Presidential eligibility. Currently, the Congress has wisely seen through the turd-like non-evidence of Obama’s alleged wrong-doing and/or Constitutional ineligibility presented to so many members by nutbag Birthers like Mike Volin in his comically titled, “Sheriff’s Kit” for example, and Congress has not found ANY reason to question or further investigate the ridiculous accusations contained therein. SCOTUS has repeatedly indicated by spitting away Birther filings, that they have seen no reason to interfere with Congress’ wise disregard for you Birther lunatics.

    The legitimate roles that Congress and Scotus have played by both their action and inaction, have sufficiently, both legally and constitutionally confirmed and validated Obama’s presidency as being legal and constitutionally compliant. They have been exposed to all the issues that you have raised and found those issues to be nonstarters.

    The fact that you have come to a different conclusion and would have decided differently if you had had the constitutional or legal authority to OFFICIALLY do so, does not change Obama’s OFFICIAL status as a completely legitimate, constitutionally eligible and legal President of the United States as determined by action AND INACTION deemed appropriate by the officers of government authorized to make such determinations.

    Your declaration that those officers of government have not made that determination appropriately by for example, not publicly investigating in a particular manner or not pursuing endless speculative and hypothetical charges LOOKING for evidence instead of based upon real evidence, does not delegitimize the methodology or conclusions those officers came to in deciding when, how, what, who, or whether to investigate, if at all.

    So constitutionally your personal declaration that Obama should be viewed or treated as though he were an usurper, is nonsensical, as then become all of your resulting conclusions drawn from your erroneous presumption that until you are personally satisfied with conclusions reached by officers of government, you may declare anything that government does illegitimate or unconstitutional.

    I applaud you for being interested in government, and suggest that you learn more about the official name for the kind of governance you claim for yourself which would allow any and every citizen to have the final say on the legitimacy, legality, and constitutionality of every issue. It is called anarchy.

    You will find out about the nightmare of anarchy as a means of governance before you (presumably) finish school. There you will learn about the violent kind and the more common type of anarchy, which you unknowingly espouse. Yours is characterized by some malcontent (in this case you) PERSONALLY claiming that government loses its legitimate authority in some regard, because of some fault that complainer finds with government’s methodology and/or its resulting conclusions or actions, or lack thereof of either.

    Officially, Obama’s Presidential eligibility and legitimacy is not Constitutionally or legally in doubt; your PERSONAL opinion to the contrary does not change that status nor call into doubt the resulting legitimacy of his actions or the actions of the people he appoints to office, or their legitimacy to hold their offices.

    The Framers would have undoubtedly judged the most dangerous threat to the Constitution as being malcontents like you who think that they personally have a right SUPERIOR to that of SCOTUS and other government offices, in settling differences of opinion about what the Constitution means, and concluding what methodology officers of government must use to arrive at legitimate conclusions and take legitimate action.

    Anarchy results when everybody gets to be the King. In short, while Obama grew up to be our President twice, you are not now, nor will you ever grow up to be, our King.

  28. avatar
    Thomas Brown August 4, 2014 at 12:35 pm #

    Bonsall Obot: And again, don’t confuse mocking and ridicule for anger.

    Yeah, I go as far as scorn. But anger? Why?

    We know reality, and it will never be the case that you (Sven) are correct. So… as some genius once said: What? Me worry?

  29. avatar
    bob August 4, 2014 at 1:34 pm #

    Bernard Sussman:
    The case might be dismissed for Taitz’s lack of standing — but it might actually succeed even though cursed by the presence of Taitz.The health concerns of these hundreds of children – happening while the public is in a panic about Ebola patients being brought to the US – will strike a humane chord somewhere in the government and somebody will decide that, yes, the kids should be checked out medically before being allowed to mingle with others.I regard this as a good thing to do, not a cruel or discriminatory act.

    Congratulations, your comment is its own Taitz post: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/even-far-left-web-sites-believe-that-the-court-will-grant-taitz-motion-in-regards-to-the-quarantine-of-illegal-immigrants/

    (And, congrats, Doc: You are part of the “far left.”)

  30. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 4, 2014 at 2:05 pm #

    Every minute that Taitz spends obsessively reading the comments here on OCT is one less minute she has to commit malpractice. So Doc and his minions are really doing a public service.

  31. avatar
    The European August 4, 2014 at 3:41 pm #

    This order is somehow weird. The Judge knows that Mrs. Taitz has no leg to stand on. So WTF is he doing there ?

  32. avatar
    Sudoku August 4, 2014 at 4:13 pm #

    Just wondering, Sven, what evidence do you base your belief that President Obama was naturalized?

  33. avatar
    Thomas Brown August 4, 2014 at 4:35 pm #

    Damn, Benji: both intellect and forbearance.

    My hat’s off, dude.

  34. avatar
    bovril August 4, 2014 at 4:55 pm #

    The European:
    This order is somehow weird. The Judge knows that Mrs. Taitz has no leg to stand on. So WTF is he doing there ?

    My opinion (worth every penny paid for it)

    Write anything better than a Sven/Oily diatribe, get the case thrown out without the judge having to waste any more time on it

  35. avatar
    bob August 4, 2014 at 5:56 pm #

    The European:
    This order is somehow weird. The Judge knows that Mrs. Taitz has no leg to stand on. So WTF is he doing there ?

    Taitz shopped, very hard, for this particular judge, Andrew S. Hanen. This judge appears to disagree with the executive branch’s handling of unaccompanied undocumented immigrants.

    While I have no doubt the judge will ultimately dismiss Taitz’s suit, he will take the opportunity to stick it to the administration.

  36. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 4, 2014 at 6:22 pm #

    Keith: Wrong. Fully, Completely, and Constitutionally WRONG.

    Have you forgotten that little thing quaintly described as “innocent until PROVEN guilty”?

    That is for a criminal complaint. In a civil suit, the allegations are considered true until there is a decision on the merits. So, if you file a civil suit alleging ol’ Sven has done some terrible things and it has caused you harm, then those allegations are considered to be true until there is a decision on the merits or I have the case dismissed because you failed to follow some complicated procedural matter.

    The federal rules of civil procedure and federal rules of evidence are amended from time to time by court order issued by the SCOTUS. SCOTUS receives recommendations on proposed rules amendments from the Judicial Committee. SCOTUS is not required to adopt or implement recommendations from the Judicial Committee, but SCOTUS gives due consideration to the Judicial Committee because it is made up judges and federal prosecutors living and working throughout America.

    Of course, all sitting Presidents appoint one or more U.S. federal officers who attend the Judicial Conference to ensure the Judicial Committee is aware of proposed rule changes the President would like to see made.

    But that’s not all. After SCOTUS votes and issues a court order to amend the federal rules of civil procedure or federal rules of evidence, Chief Justice Roberts delivers the court order to Congress for review and consideration of changes, amendments, deletions or additions. If Congress passes an Act to codify their changes to the court order issued by SCOTUS, it is sent to the President for his consideration of signing the Congressional Act into law.

    Guess who signed the most significant changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules on Evidence into law. Yeah, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure used by the courts to dismiss the challenges into President Obama’s eligibility were signed into law by President Obama.

    You’re on the wrong side of history. Obama is destroying America to develop America 2.0 and many executive level U.S. federal officers from all three branches of government are helping him as fast as they can.

  37. avatar
    DaveH August 4, 2014 at 6:35 pm #

    You are wrong on so many levels that it’s hardly worth the time to point out your errors and your idiotic thinking. However, I really wish Orly would follow your advice when she’s filing lawsuits.

    Even in a civil suit, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

    You and Orly think that you can make allegations, sue someone, go into court and make them prove your allegations are wrong. Orly has never learned how to properly submit evidence nor has she learned what evidence really is. It’s like when the court in Alabama wanted her to let them know what procedures she had gone through to authenticate the Kenyan BC she submitted of Lucas Smith and she wanted the court to make the government prove that the BC President Obama had posted online was authentic.

    And that is why birfers are so DUMB!

    SvenMagnussen: That is for a criminal complaint. In a civil suit, the allegations are considered true until there is a decision on the merits. So, if you file a civil suit alleging ol’ Sven has done some terrible things and it has caused you harm, then those allegations are considered to be true until there is a decision on the merits or I have the case dismissed because you failed to follow some complicated procedural matter.

    The federal rules of civil procedure and federal rules of evidence are amended from time to time by court order issued by the SCOTUS. SCOTUS receives recommendations on proposed rules amendments from the Judicial Committee. SCOTUS is not required to adopt or implement recommendations from the Judicial Committee, but SCOTUS gives due consideration to the Judicial Committee because it is made up judges and federal prosecutors living and working throughout America.

    Of course, all sitting Presidents appoint one or more U.S. federal officers who attend the Judicial Conference to ensure the Judicial Committee is aware of proposed rule changes the President would like to see made.

    But that’s not all. After SCOTUS votes and issues a court order to amend the federal rules of civil procedure or federal rules of evidence, Chief Justice Roberts delivers the court order to Congress for review and consideration of changes, amendments, deletions or additions. If Congress passes an Act to codify their changes to the court order issued by SCOTUS, it is sent to the President for his consideration of signing the Congressional Act into law.

    Guess who signed the most significant changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules on Evidence into law. Yeah, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure used by the courts to dismiss the challenges into President Obama’s eligibility were signed into law by President Obama.

    You’re on the wrong side of history. Obama is destroying America to develop America 2.0 and many executive level U.S. federal officers from all three branches of government are helping him as fast as they can.

  38. avatar
    Crustacean August 4, 2014 at 6:39 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama is destroying America to develop America 2.0

    Whenever I see a simple solution to a problem, I try to help out.

    The Problem: incessant use of the endlessly annoying phrase “America 2.0″.

    The Solution: every time you feel yourself compelled to type the phrase, “America 2.0″, slap yourself in the face as hard as you can. Repeat until symptoms are gone, or until you can no longer recognize yourself in the mirror.

    You’re welcome.

  39. avatar
    predicto August 4, 2014 at 6:47 pm #

    As an actual constitutional attorney with 26 years of experience, I just want to thank Sven Magnussen for all his postings. They are quite hilariously wrong in so many ways that they never fail to entertain.

    He is the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. He can’t even comprehend why he is wrong.

  40. avatar
    Georgetown JD August 4, 2014 at 7:49 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: That is for a criminal complaint. In a civil suit, the allegations are considered true until there is a decision on the merits. So, if you file a civil suit alleging ol’ Sven has done some terrible things and it has caused you harm, then those allegations are considered to be true until there is a decision on the merits or I have the case dismissed because you failed to follow some complicated procedural matter.

    Um, no. The presumption that the ALLEGATIONS in the Complaint are true is ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF A MOTION TO DISMISS pursuant to Rule 12. That is because the MTD is testing the viability of the claims asserted in the Complaint, i.e., by giving the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt does his complaint allege sufficient facts to state a cognizable claim for relief?

    The burden of proof always remains the plaintiff’s. If he alleges it, he must prove it — every single allegation. If the plaintiff cannot cough up the evidence to prove his allegations, too bad, so sad.

  41. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 4, 2014 at 7:57 pm #

    predicto:
    As an actual constitutional attorney with 26 years of experience, I just want to thank Sven Magnussen for all his postings. They are quite hilariously wrong in so many ways that they never fail to entertain.

    He is the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. He can’t even comprehend why he is wrong.

    Just ask him about his theories on Barry and the Pirates…

  42. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 4, 2014 at 8:17 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: In a civil suit, the allegations are considered true until there is a decision on the merits.

    —-

    This sentence establishes beyond any doubt that Sven cannot be an attorney–not even an incompetent slip and fall attorney.

    Thanks to Georgetown J.D. for pointing out how Sven likely came to this ludicrous conclusion–Sven likely had read case law re motions to dismiss and had completely misunderstood what he was reading.

  43. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 4, 2014 at 8:27 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Yeah, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure used by the courts to dismiss the challenges into President Obama’s eligibility were signed into law by President Obama.


    Sven, please name one change to the federal rules that was used to dismiss a challenge to President Obama’s eligibility.

  44. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 4, 2014 at 8:34 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —-

    This sentence establishes beyond any doubt that Sven cannot be an attorney–

    O RLY?

    This is America! If there’s one thing the Birfers have taught us, its that literally anyone can become an attorney in the United States. (No offense.)

  45. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 4, 2014 at 8:43 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: You’re on the wrong side of history. Obama is destroying America to develop America 2.0

    And here SvenMagnussen illustrates how righteously unencumbered he is by the rules of arguing in good faith,which includes taking the time to test the logic of your own premises and the truth of the facts from which you argue.

    SvenMagnussen doesn’t have to care how willfully wrong he is proven to be on issue after issue related to accusations made against Obama, because Sven is certain that Obama is a despicable traitorous devil whose goal is to destroy America.

    It is as though SvenMagnussen ‘s arguments about the geology of the Earth’s Moon and what the Moon is composed of, don’t have to incorporate what is actually scientifically known about either the Moon or dairy products, because he has independently decided that the moon is made out of a poisonous blue cheese.

  46. avatar
    Dave B. August 4, 2014 at 8:50 pm #

    Where do I sign up for that prenumbra thingy?

    SvenMagnussen: I, and everyone else subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, possess a prenumbra of God-given rights

  47. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 4, 2014 at 9:55 pm #

    Bonsall Obot: This is America! If there’s one thing the Birfers have taught us, its that literally anyone can become an attorney in the United States. (No offense.)

    And Orly taught us that not every attorney knows how to use Spell-Check!

    Everything changed for Orly when in acknowledgement of what appeared to be her own inability to produce competent legal filings, she hired Charles Lincoln III to massage her briefs.

    Ironically, by losing her elections Orly kept government out of her fully reclinable dental chair of love, wherein she can now continue to perfect, what appeared to be, in partnership with Chucky the emergence of her sort of cross-discipline practice of what might be called, Gyno-illogical dentistry, where gentle and painless preliminary patient de-briefing encourages the patient to immediately overcome his fear of the dentist by repeatedly going through the role-reversing motions of filling as many of the dentist’s own cavities, as time and screeching allows.

  48. avatar
    interestedbystander August 5, 2014 at 2:55 am #

    Crustacean: Whenever I see a simple solution to a problem, I try to help out.

    The Problem: incessant use of the endlessly annoying phrase “America 2.0″.

    The Solution: every time you feel yourself compelled to type the phrase, “America 2.0″, slap yourself in the face as hard as you can.Repeat until symptoms are gone, or until you can no longer recognize yourself in the mirror.

    You’re welcome.

    Or, remind oneself of the drawbacks of America 1.0 ….. executions that take two hours, people dying of treatable conditions because they can’t afford treatment, legal discrimination on the basis of race, gender or sexuality, poisoned water and air – yes I can quite see how Sven yearns for things to stay the same.

  49. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 5, 2014 at 3:50 am #

    Crustacean: incessant use of the endlessly annoying phrase “America 2.0″

    Or “Amerika”.

  50. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 5, 2014 at 3:57 am #

    Georgetown JD: f?

    The burden of proof always remains the plaintiff’s. If he alleges it, he must prove it — every single allegation.If the plaintiff cannot cough up the evidence to prove his allegations, too bad, so sad.

    My response was to a person who stated a civil litigant was innocent until proven guilty. I corrected the statement because only a criminal defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

    In civil litigation, the plaintiff is presumed to be honorable and would not make false allegations (bare false witness against his fellow man). Consequently, allegations are considered to be true until there is an answer by the defendant. A truthful allegation does not equate to a meritorious allegation (i.e. the allegations ol’ Sven is a terrible person and has done terrible things are truthful allegations, but none of the people who post on OCT have been directly harmed by ol’ Sven and anyone who posts on OCT will have their case dismissed because they do not have an injury that can be rectified by court order.)

    The burden of proof doesn’t shift until there is an answer by the defendant. If the defendant’s answer is a denial of the allegations, then plaintiff has a right to begin discovery to prove the allegation(s) denied. Post discovery, a trial verdict determines if the allegations are meritorious. Again, the allegations made against the defendants could be true, but the court could find the plaintiff did have enough injury to merit a court requiring the defendant to pay or do something or stop doing something. Or the allegations are true and the plaintiff suffered an injury which merits a court order for defendant to pay, do something or stop doing something.

    Procedure rules are barriers to entry to facilitate judicial economy. In other words, the court can see where the case is going and uses a procedural device developed after a court order from SCOTUS or a Congressional Act signed into law by the President to dismiss a case before there is a decision on the merits. When the President is ineligible and his appointments to the Supreme Court are voidable, then the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence are voidable.

    Naturally, civil litigant defense lawyers have falsely convinced the world that Judges can determine the merits of a case before discovery begins. If a MtD is granted, then it can only mean the defendant is innocent of all allegations.

  51. avatar
    Keith August 5, 2014 at 4:46 am #

    SvenMagnussen: My response was to a person who stated a civil litigant was innocent until proven guilty. I corrected the statement because only a criminal defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

    You are bearing false witness, Sven.

    I didn’t say anything about ‘a civil litigant’ and neither did you. I responded to your assertion that:

    The U.S. federal government forfeits their Constitutional authority after it has been given notice of a violation of the Eligibility Clause and fails or refuses to investigate a violation of the Constitution after assumption of the Office of the President of the United States who naturalized in 1983.

    There is no litigation going on there of any kind, civil or criminal. You are unilaterally dismissing the authority of the Government with out due process of any kind. Due process is not standing in the mall shouting “a pox on both your Houses and take the half-Kenyan with you”. Oh sure, you are entitled to do that, but everybody else is just as entitled to ignore you completely, or as we tend to do here, laugh at you hysterically – both are perfectly valid responses to your “notice”.

    The Ninth amendment is not a secret code for “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law (and by the way forget all that stuff we said earlier about how the Government works – we were just kidding)”

    You are welcome to “give notice” to the Government about anything you damn well please. You are not, however entitled to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes a valid response to your “notice”.

  52. avatar
    JPotter August 5, 2014 at 5:25 am #

    SvenMagnussen: In civil litigation, the plaintiff is presumed to be honorable and would not make false allegations

    A blank check for crazypants.

    SvenMagnussen: When the President is ineligible and his appointments to the Supreme Court are voidable, then the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence are voidable.

    Classic modus birfens “logic”. From an unestablished premise to a non sequitur. When are Senate-confirmed appointments “voidable”? Why would the Federal Rules be necessarily tossed aside in this imaginary time of “voidability”?

    Oh, right, you’re making it up as you go along ;)

  53. avatar
    The European August 5, 2014 at 7:59 am #

    bob: Taitz shopped, very hard, for this particular judge, Andrew S. Hanen.This judge appears to disagree with the executive branch’s handling of unaccompanied undocumented immigrants.

    While I have no doubt the judge will ultimately dismiss Taitz’s suit, he will take the opportunity to stick it to the administration.

    Yeah bob, I know now what you are talking about:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/12/19/judge-hanen-order-on-child-smuggling/

  54. avatar
    Sam the Centipede August 5, 2014 at 8:42 am #

    JPotter
    Classic modus birfens “logic”. From an unestablished premise to a non sequitur. …

    Excellent philosophical analysis! I hadn’t heard this argument described as modus birfens logic – perhaps it should be modus birfens illogic – but it is a very apt term.

  55. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 5, 2014 at 9:18 am #

    SvenMagnussen: If a MtD is granted, then it can only mean the defendant is innocent of all allegations.

    No, it can also mean that the plaintiff didn’t state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or filed a patently frivolous case.

    If, hypothetically speaking, your President is ineligible and you go to court to sue Congress “for not doing its job”, an MtD will be granted because you don’t state a claim upon which relief can be granted, even if your claim is presumed to be true for the sake of deciding the MtD.

    If you are suing me for being a reptilian shapeshifter and impersonating you last night in bed with your wife, an MtD will be granted because the case is obviously frivolous.

    Neither of which mean the hypothetical ineligible President or I are innocent, only that you still don’t win your case.

    In addition, I can sue you for stealing the moon from me, but even if you didn’t answer and I won by default (which won’t happen, see frivolous), it doesn’t prove I ever legally owned the moon in the first place.
    (BTW this is why you can sue me to cease and desist using the domain name “sven.xy” but not sue me to hand it over to you, simply because the court only decides which of the two of us has the “better” rights to the domain but not whether you got the best rights among every potential claimant in the world. Vice versa, if you lose, it only means I got the better rights between the both of us, not that nobody else can wrestle the domain from me because I’m “innocent”.)

  56. avatar
    John Reilly August 5, 2014 at 9:18 am #

    IANAL but even I know that if a plaintiff makes allegations, and the defendant does not respond, the trial court must still determine whether the plaintiff has enough evidence and a legal right to get a judgment.

    I know that Dr. Taitz believes otherwise, and Sven apparently agrees with her. That does not make it so. Even in Moldova.

    Sven refuses:

    1. To explain why the existing Constitutional procedures by which Pres. Obama’s two elections were certified by Congress are not enough.
    2. To explain why investigations like that done by Arizona Secretary of State Bennett are not enough.
    3. To explain what change in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was used to defeat an otherwise meritorious claim of presidential ineligibility.

  57. avatar
    Paper August 5, 2014 at 9:38 am #

    I estimate we already live in America 5.7.1.

    Lest you forget, the Constitution itself is America 2.0. America 1.0 was the Articles of Confederation. (America before that was in prerelease beta.)

    The antebellum amendments and Supreme Court opinions and precedents established by George Washington and others probably took us to America 2.7.

    The Civil War and Reconstruction mark America 3.0.

    The Progressive Era lifts us to America 4.0.

    Civil Rights takes us to 5.0.

    So by your view, President Obama is a constitutional originalist who wants to take us back to the original 2.0 version of America?

    SvenMagnussen:
    Obama is destroying America to develop America 2.0 and many executive level U.S. federal officers from all three branches of government are helping him as fast as they can.

  58. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 5, 2014 at 9:43 am #

    Paper:

    The Civil War and Reconstruction mark America 3.0.

    The Progressive Era lifts us to America 4.0.

    Civil Rights takes us to 5.0.

    It’s worth noting that the SCOTUS has decided that these versions will no longer be supported and no further security patches will be forthcoming.

  59. avatar
    JPotter August 5, 2014 at 9:46 am #

    John Reilly: IANAL but even I know that if a plaintiff makes allegations, and the defendant does not respond, the trial court must still determine whether the plaintiff has enough evidence and a legal right to get a judgment.

    The classic example would have to be that famous coming out party for The Empty Chair™ down in GA, presided over by Malihi. According to Sven’s logic, all allegations were “true”. And hey, Malihi even offered to grant a default judgment, right? ;)

    Sam the Centipede: Excellent philosophical analysis! I hadn’t heard this argument described as modus birfens logic – perhaps it should be modus birfens illogic – but it is a very apt term.

    I think I invented it. Please use it early and often. I think “birfens” describes just what kind of “logic” is being described …. no logic at all! The term has proved useful in separating comments from commenters, enabling response to birfs on a less personal level.

  60. avatar
    JPotter August 5, 2014 at 9:49 am #

    Paper:
    I estimate we already live in America 5.7.1.

    Lest you forget, the Constitution itself is America 2.0.America 1.0 was the Articles of Confederation.(America before that was in prerelease beta.)

    The antebellum amendments and Supreme Court opinions and precedents established by George Washington and others probably took us to America 2.7.

    The Civil War and Reconstruction mark America 3.0.

    The Progressive Era lifts us to America 4.0.

    Civil Rights takes us to 5.0.

    So by your view, President Obama is a constitutional originalist who wants to take us back to the original 2.0 version of America?

    Hilarious outline Paper, and pretty well thought out to boot!
    Sad to say, I don’t think we’re in America 5.0 any more :(

  61. avatar
    John Reilly August 5, 2014 at 10:13 am #

    JPotter: The classic example would have to be that famous coming out party for The Empty Chair™ down in GA, presided over by Malihi. According to Sven’s logic, all allegations were “true”. And hey, Malihi even offered to grant a default judgment, right?

    According to Sven, not only are all allegations true, but the good faith of the plaintiff is presumed.

    Hard to believe Dr. Taitz lost. Must have been some mid-trial change in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Oops. Not a federal proceeding. Why wasn’t the presumption that the plaintiff’s allegations are true and made in good faith good enough in Georgia, a state whose government is hardly in Pres. Obama’s pocket?

  62. avatar
    Rickey August 5, 2014 at 10:57 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    In civil litigation, the plaintiff is presumed to be honorable and would not make false allegations (bare false witness against his fellow man).

    Bare false witness? Wouldn’t that amount to indecent exposure?

  63. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 5, 2014 at 11:02 am #

    JPotter: Classic modus birfens “logic”. From an unestablished premise to a non sequitur.

    They do this so often that it might be well for us to, when responding, adopt the word-hyphenated acronym ‘FUPtoNS’ to label what they have done when they do it more than, say, a dozen times in each paragraph?

  64. avatar
    BillTheCat August 5, 2014 at 11:45 am #

    I gotta say, Sven has John-levels of Teflon and restraint in the face of being labeled a racist bag of excrement, kudos for that. Aside from that, he’s absurdly wrong and can go cry me a river over his allegation that the President is “transforming” the country into a socialist utopia. (I wish)

    I’m completely confident that he will also enjoy America 3.0 during two terms of President Hillary Clinton. :)

  65. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 5, 2014 at 11:47 am #

    SvenMagnussen: In civil litigation, the plaintiff is presumed to be honorable and would not make false allegations (bare false witness against his fellow man). Consequently, allegations are considered to be true until there is an answer by the defendant. A truthful allegation does not equate to a meritorious allegation (i.e. the allegations ol’ Sven is a terrible person and has done terrible things are truthful allegations, but none of the people who post on OCT have been directly harmed by ol’ Sven and anyone who posts on OCT will have their case dismissed because they do not have an injury that can be rectified by court order.)


    So, under your theory, if the defendant files a motion to dismiss instead of an answer, and the case is dismissed for failure to allege an injury, the allegations that “ol’Sven is a terrible person and has done terrible things” remain presumptively true albeit unactionable. That is ridiculous.

    p.s. I am still waiting for you to identify a single amendment to the federal rules that has had any impact on litigation against President Obama.

  66. avatar
    JPotter August 5, 2014 at 12:04 pm #

    Benji Franklin: ‘FUPtoNS’

    It has a fun pronunciation …. “fup-tunz”.

    “That steaming pile weighs in at 28 FUPtoNS!”

    I like it :D

  67. avatar
    Sef August 5, 2014 at 12:57 pm #

    Paper:
    I estimate we already live in America 5.7.1.

    Lest you forget, the Constitution itself is America 2.0.America 1.0 was the Articles of Confederation.(America before that was in prerelease beta.)

    The antebellum amendments and Supreme Court opinions and precedents established by George Washington and others probably took us to America 2.7.

    The Civil War and Reconstruction mark America 3.0.

    The Progressive Era lifts us to America 4.0.

    Civil Rights takes us to 5.0.

    So by your view, President Obama is a constitutional originalist who wants to take us back to the original 2.0 version of America?

    Never use any version x.0, or any even patch level. Always wait for odd-numbered patches.

  68. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 5, 2014 at 1:05 pm #

    Obamaland and the Odd-Numbered Patches is my new band.

  69. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 5, 2014 at 4:49 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —
    So, under your theory, if the defendant files a motion to dismiss instead of an answer, and the case is dismissed for failure to allege an injury, the allegations that “ol’Sven is a terrible person and has done terrible things” remain presumptively true albeit unactionable.That is ridiculous.

    Unactionable by those who have not suffered injury and the US AG and US ATTY who were appointed by an ineligible President. But if ol’ Sven lived in California, you could “invite” CA AG Kamala Harris to the hearing and encourage her to file state charges in CA.

  70. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 5, 2014 at 5:14 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Unactionable by those who have not suffered injury and the US AG and US ATTY who were appointed by an ineligible President. But if ol’ Sven lived in California, you could “invite” CA AG Kamala Harris to the hearing and encourage her to file state charges in CA.

    ——
    That is nonresponsive to my comment.

  71. avatar
    Thomas Brown August 5, 2014 at 6:51 pm #

    Ask yourself these questions, Sven:

    What has become of the Alchemists?
    What has become of the Flat Earthers?
    What has become of the idea that heavier-than-air flight is impossible?
    What became of the guy who asked “Why would people want a computer on their desks?”
    What is the fate of the Moon-Landing Deniers?

    Their fate is yours, Sven. They were wrong, and posterity has only pity for them and contempt for their ideas. Obama will NEVER be seen by the honest and sane as having been ineligible.

    Birthers will be seen as deluded idiots for the rest of your pitiful, perverted existence. Allegedly.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 5, 2014 at 7:06 pm #

    You can stream Full Metal Alchemist on Netflix.

    Thomas Brown: What has become of the Alchemists?

  73. avatar
    Georgetown JD August 5, 2014 at 7:47 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    The burden of proof doesn’t shift until there is an answer by the defendant.

    The burden of proof NEVER shifts, Sven. The burden of going forward shifts back and forth AT TRIAL, but the burdens of proof and ultimate persuasion never shift during any part of the proceeding, from filing of the complaint until entry of judgment.

    You have further confirmed that you’re just making s*** up.

  74. avatar
    DaveH August 5, 2014 at 7:48 pm #

    Ole Sven wrote this above:

    “In civil litigation, the plaintiff is presumed to be honorable and would not make false allegations (bare false witness against his fellow man).

    In Sven’s opinion, anyone who brings a civil case is “honorable’. I wonder if this is in the case for the numerous convicts that bring civil suits – not for constitutional rights -but something like say that guy that Orly cozied up to by the name of Keith Judd – the convict that has been suing the entire time he’s been incarcerated?

  75. avatar
    Georgetown JD August 5, 2014 at 8:05 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    In civil litigation, the plaintiff is presumed to be honorable and would not make false allegations (bare false witness against his fellow man).

    False. There is no presumption whatever concerning the honor or credibility of the plaintiff. His credibility and the truth or falsity of his allegations are left for the determination of the finder of fact, after a trial.

    As the Supreme Court explained in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the court’s sole concern is whether the complaint alleges enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” With emphasis on the term “plausible.”

  76. avatar
    Keith August 5, 2014 at 10:41 pm #

    Sef: Never use any version x.0, or any even patch level. Always wait for odd-numbered patches.

    Sound advice.

    However you have provided too many instructions. Since 0 is an even number (sort of), all you need to say is don’t use even number patches.

    But then you have to look out for the guys that give EVERY patch an odd number just to trip you up. I have seen this. I can’t remember what it was now, but they were a clever little bunch of b@st@rds.

  77. avatar
    Paper August 6, 2014 at 12:08 am #

    True dat.

    Sef: Never use any version x.0, or any even patch level. Always wait for odd-numbered patches.

  78. avatar
    Paper August 6, 2014 at 12:13 am #

    All grist for the mill for America 6.0, with the tune-ups leading to version 6.3.

    Bonsall Obot: It’s worth noting that the SCOTUS has decided that these versions will no longer be supported and no further security patches will be forthcoming.

    JPotter: Hilarious outline Paper, and pretty well thought out to boot!
    Sad to say, I don’t think we’re in America 5.0 any more

  79. avatar
    The European August 6, 2014 at 12:47 pm #

    Looking up news about Judge Hanen I stumbled over this. Whow !!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/texas-corruption-armando-villalobos_n_1642673.html

  80. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 9, 2014 at 8:21 am #

    Update:

    The Government responds

  81. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 9, 2014 at 11:19 am #

    Sef: Never use any version x.0, or any even patch level. Always wait for odd-numbered patches.

    And here I’ve been running the OS/2 Warp version of America. DOH!

  82. avatar
    Andrew Morris August 9, 2014 at 12:47 pm #

    Orly derailed, again, I suspect. Ironic that it’s a far-right SCOTUS that limited standing. I doubt Scalia/Thomas envisaged it being used to shut down people they’re politically sympathetic to

  83. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 10, 2014 at 10:53 pm #

    Orly Orlysplains the “progress” of the “case” to her flying monkeys, who are even dumber than she is:

    “they answered on friday and I sent the reply. The judge will rule any day now”

    Six years, and she has no idea what that phrase means.

  84. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 10, 2014 at 11:34 pm #

    That “reply,” by the way, is Vintage Orlena: mendacious, racist, crazy and unofficial, since the court never gave leave for her to file such a reply.

    Orly is a wreck: persistently coughing, drenched in blood, and burdened by pancakes on her head.

  85. avatar
    Rickey August 12, 2014 at 3:34 pm #

    Bonsall Obot:
    That “reply,” by the way, is Vintage Orlena: mendacious, racist, crazy and unofficial, since the court never gave leave for her to file such a reply.

    Orly is a wreck: persistently coughing, drenched in blood, and burdened by pancakes on her head.

    Yes, she once again demonstrates her contempt for and/or ignorance of the rules of the Court.

    This is my favorite line:

    Being a doctor, Taitz is in direct contact with blood, saliva and tissues of her patients. One surgical procedure can leave her covered with blood all over.

    I, for one, would have reservations about going to go to a dentist who has performed oral surgery which led to blood being spewed all over her.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/236613776/2014-08-12-ECF-22-Taitz-v-Johnson-Reply-to-Response-to-OSC

  86. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 12, 2014 at 5:41 pm #

    Bloody Orly and the Immigrant Tissues is my new band.

  87. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 13, 2014 at 10:49 am #

    Orly Taitzbola feat. MC Not A Racist But.