Main Menu

Archive | Lawsuits

Taitz tries tort tomorrow; Judge jabs Johnson

I think the tales of Orly Taitz have reached the level of a saga. The woman from Rancho Santa Margarita will, we suppose, be in Texas for a hearing at 1:30 in her immigration case, styled Taitz v. Johnson et al.

Orly Taitz believes she has found her judge. Writing to Kathleen Staunton, executive assistant to Congressman Rohrbacher:

Judge Hanen is a judge, who previously excoriated the US government for acting as human smugglers. He scheduled a hearing for August 27, 2014, 1:30 pm, at Brownsville, TX, 600 Harrison ave, USDC, courtroom #6.

The judge issued an order to show cause to DHS and HHS, why shouldn’t he rule in favor of Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz seeking a 2 months quarantine, medical release, criminal record from the country of origin and legal determination of eligibility for US residency before release of illegal aliens into the communities.

The Defendants argue that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and that no witnesses are appropriate, but in order to comply with the Court’s order, they submitted a list of 3 witnesses who are prepared to testify as to the current practice in handling unaccompanied minors entering the US without documentation. Taitz in turn has subpoenaed 4 other Border Patrol members to testify that officers are getting sick from diseases carried by the children. According to Taitz:

They are prepared to testify that the defendants are trafficking multiple illegal aliens with infectious diseases and 11 officers have been infected while processing these illegal aliens. Additionally, they are prepared to testify in regards to multiple individuals from hostile radical Muslim countries crossing the border and being allowed to fly all over the country without any IDs. Officers are under a gag order coming from their superiors.

Judge Hanen has signed an order for them to appear.

Read more:

What, a new eligibility lawsuit appeal?

Claiming a specific injury because of an ineligible president, Christopher John Rudy is suing the government for $90, a fee he had to pay as the result of a law signed by Barack Obama, whom Rudy alleges is not really the president. Of course, this case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

The original case (1:2013cv00278) was filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court in March of 2013. The order dismissing the case agreed with the Patent Office’s contention that the courts lacked jurisdiction to decide presidential eligibility because it was a political question. A political question is defined by guidelines set down by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962), existing when any of the following holds:

  1. textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;
  2. a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue;
  3. the impossibility of resolving the issue without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;
  4. the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution of the issue without expressing a lack of respect due to the coordinate branches of government;
  5. an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or
  6. the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

Defendants cited to three of the criteria (1, 5 and 6) and said: “numerous articles and amendments of the U. S. Constitution, when viewed together, make clear that the issue of the President’s qualifications and his removal from office are textually committed to the legislative branch and not the judicial branch.”

The decision was appealed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (case number 14-1056), and the lower court ruling was affirmed without comment on April 11, 2014.

What makes this latter-day case a little more interesting is the submission of an amicus brief by the United States Justice Foundation (Gary Kreep’s old outfit). This time the USJF attorney is William J. Olson. The USJF is a non-profit, right-wing nut job public interest organization. The USJF brief claims that up until now, “no one has questioned the validity of a law signed by the president.” That is, of course, is factually wrong. Orly Taitz did that in Taitz v. Sebelius.  Very sloppy work, Mr. Olson. Our old buddy Herb Titus makes an appearance on the docket also, I presume with the amicus brief.

The Supreme Court appeal was docketed July 10, and assigned case number 14-36. Here is the USJF brief, and it is quoted from in the WorldNetDaily article referenced below.

Read more:

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

A waste of money

So Orly Taitz wrote in an article yesterday [link to Taitz web site] that she had appealed Taitz v. Colvin to the 4th Circuit. I ran a search on PACER to find the case, wasting ten cents on getting no results as of close of business today. Taitz, no doubt, wasted a lot more filing a case that has zero chance of going anywhere. We’ll just have to wait for the text.

As I was writing this article, my browser rested on the Taitz site and some of those dodgy download messages started appearing.  I thought about adding a sidebar feature, a Taitz web site threat alert level, but that wouldn’t be good unless it was always up to date. Here is today’s alert anyway:

image

I’ve been impressed by the various judicial opinion’s I’ve read in the course of writing about Obama conspiracy stories. It’s sort of a mini legal education. I can’t read Judge Hollander’s decision in Taitz v. Colvin without hearing in the background, “See? This is how to frame a legal argument!”

The judge was not impressed

Plaintiff [Orly Taitz] can rest assured that if any reasonable grounds existed for me to recuse myself from this case, I would have done so, if for no other reason than to avoid spending precious time on such frivolous filings. But, my responsibilities require me to handle dutifully the cases assigned to me.

– Federal Judge Ellen L. Hollander
Taitz v. Colvin

And so Orly Taitz’s motion for reconsideration and recusal of the judge was summarily rejected in a 7-page memorandum. Judge Hollander makes it clear that she is quite familiar with who Orly Taitz is, and her litigation history on behalf of the “’birther’ movement.” Judge Hollander points out that the time limit provided by statute had already passed, when Taitz filed her motion.

Judge Hollander notes:

Ms. Taitz has not provided any legal authority for the proposition that, if the President were removed from office, this judge or the hundreds of other executive and judicial branch appointees selected by him and then confirmed by the Senate would also become disqualified from their offices.

Nor has any other birther cited any legal authority for this widely-birther-held theory.

Klayman files appeal of obscure ruling on Alabama law to the US Supreme Court

Late as usual

In a move that left Obots open-mouthed with incomprehension, birther attorney Larry Klayman (who has never been convicted of criminal failure to pay child support), started the process of appealing his loss in McInnish v. Chapman to the US Supreme Court on June 19, reports the Supreme Court docket. Klayman moved for more time to submit his appeal. Perhaps he is hoping to get some momentum by a favorable ruling.

The McInnish case dealt with an obscure provision of Alabama law, called the “jurisdiction stripping statute,” that prevents Alabama courts from getting involved in the conduct of elections. McInnish wanted to force the Alabama Secretary of State to investigate the eligibility of presidential candidates as a duty of office. Klayman lost the case before the Alabama Supreme Court last March on a 7-2 vote, Chief Justice Roy Moore and Tom Parker dissenting.

Klayman’s timing of this request for an extension is odd. An appeal must be filed within 60 days of the judgment (28 U.S. Code § 2101) and Klayman’s motion for more time (which the statute permits) was filed precisely on the 60th day; however, the rules of the Supreme Court require that the request for an extension be filed 10 days before the deadline. Supreme Court Rule 13 (5) states:

For good cause, a Justice may extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari for a period not exceeding 60 days. An application to extend the time to file shall set out the basis for jurisdiction in this Court, identify the judgment sought to be reviewed, include a copy of the opinion and any order respecting rehearing, and set out specific reasons why an extension of time is justified. The application must be filed with the Clerk at least 10 days before the date the petition is due, except in extraordinary circumstances. The application must clearly identify each party for whom an extension is being sought, as any extension that might be granted would apply solely to the party or parties named in the application. For the time and manner of presenting the application, see Rules 21, 22, 30, and 33.2. An application to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is not favored.

The request for an extension was not even docketed until June 25, long after the deadline. I don’t even know if it is possible for a Justice to grant an extension after the deadline has expired, and if that’s true then the extension must have been granted on the 19th, or not at all; the Supreme Court docket indicates no extension granted. It is hard to fathom a reason for this case to be considered  having "extraordinary circumstances." Klayman could have filed the request for an extension any time he wanted to. There’s certainly no new evidence in the interpretation of the Alabama jurisdiction stripping statute. The election, which is the subject of the case, is long over, making anything to do with that particular election moot.

Read more: