Main Menu

Archive | Lawsuits

As the tort turns (formerly “Raspberry tort”)

Raspberry Torte

Attorneys and other legal-savvy individuals may have cringed at my recent article titled: “Taitz tries tort tomorrow; Judge jabs Johnson” because what Orly Taitz filed was not a tort claim. I don’t know exactly what to call it, but Taitz was not suing for damages as a result of her getting sick, allegedly as a resulting of treating undocumented immigrant children. The ever-helpful Judge Andrew S. Hanen, as I heard the report from Tomtech, told Taitz that the only way she could gain standing was a a victim in a tort claim. The Federal Tort Claims Act gives an injured party the right to sue the government and includes a waiver of sovereign immunity. One of the problems Taitz will have is that there is an exception in the FTCA that immunizes the United States for acts or omissions of its employees that involve policy decisions (which would seem at the heart of the matter here).

Plus, Taitz is going to have to establish standing, and to do that she will have to show:

  1. an injury in fact (her getting sick should count)
  2. a link between defendant’s conduct and her injury
  3. that the Court can redress her complaint

The first point is fairly easy to show, but how is it possible for Taitz to show why she got sick. People get sick all the time, people who have had no contact with undocumented immigrant children. Doctors treat sick people all the time, and healthcare practitioners generally take reasonable precautions against infection, such as the use of masks, gloves and hand washing. The final point is that it would be purely speculative to assert that Orly would get sick again unless immigration policy changed, so I do not see how the Court could grant the extreme relief Orly Taitz demanded (non transportation of children and quarantine) to redress the damage of her getting sick. The Court cannot provide relief contrary to the law, and this writer thinks that what the government is doing in the way of releasing the children is what the law demands.

Read more:

Unfunded mandate

I think most Americans would agree that US Immigration Policy needs change and the law needs reforming. In the current state of gridlock in Congress, that is unlikely to happen, and the resulting fallout is in the news daily.

We see it here in the case of Taitz v. Johnson et al., where Orly Taitz has sued to stop the transportation and release of undocumented immigrant children pending court hearings on their eligibility to remain in the US as refugees. The problem, says a government witness in the Taitz hearing yesterday, is that the US Border Patrol has no jurisdiction outside of the United States, and cannot therefore stop undocumented immigrants from crossing the border and can only arrest them once they cross. A statute passed in the last days of the Bush Administration, the William Wilberforce Child Trafficking Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, gives unaccompanied minor immigrants the right to a hearing, but the immigration courts are woefully underfunded, resulting in long delays. The legislation requires the government to place these children in the least restrictive setting, which in practice is release to a relative, or foster care.

Judge Andrew S. Hanen, judge of the Brownsville Division of the US District Court for the Southeastern District of Texas, doesn’t seem to like the transportation and and release of these children who are less likely than not to appear at their court hearing, and less likely than not to be allowed ultimately to stay in the US as refugees. Observer Tomtech, who was at yesterday’s hearing in the Taitz case, said that Judge Hanen appeared to be looking for a way to intervene, but concluded that nothing was likely to happen with Orly Taitz as attorney under the complaint she filed and therefore Judge Hanen denied Taitz’s request for a temporary restraining order and her admission to the Court Pro Hac Vice, removing the possibility for Orly to attempt to turn her case into a class action.

The 1:30 PM hearing lasted until almost 6 o’clock. A second hearing was scheduled for October 29th to rule on an injunction.  Judge Hanen has allowed Taitz to file an amended complaint by September 12, followed by the taking of depositions with the Court’s permission.

Read more:

Minute order on hearing:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Andrew S. Hanen. MOTION HEARING held on 8/27/2014. Appearances: O.Taitz, Atty/Plaintiff; D.Hu, AUSA; C.Kisor, AUSA;(Court Reporter: B.Barnard)(01:31-03:44/ 03:55-05:49). All parties present and ready to proceed. Discussion held as to pending motions. Oral argument held. Govts witness K. Oaks sworn in/ testified/ cross. Govts Exhibits #2,#3,#4 admitted. Defts Exhibit #1 admitted. Court Break. Court Resumes. All parties present. Govts Witness T.Brooks sworn in/ testified/ cross. Govts Witness A.Fierro sworn in/ testified/ cross. Govt concludes its presentation. O.Taitz addressed the Court. Court addressed the parties. Court DENIES the termporary restraining order. Plaintiff has until 09/12/14 to file amended complaint. Defendants have until 10/03/14 to respond either by answer or by motion to dismiss. Plaintiff may reply by 11/17/14. Injunction hearing will be held on 10/29/14 at 10:00 am. Initial Conference set for 10/28/14 is cancelled. Depositions to be taken after amended complaint and with Courts permission. Court adjourned., filed.(csustaeta, 1)

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.


The Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari on October 6, 2014.

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.


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:


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!”