In my recent article, Talking points, I was musing on how same arguments recirculate and get the same answers on forums and web sites like this. The same principle applies to the Obama lawsuits. Orly Taitz has brought five federal lawsuits, one in California, one in Texas, two in Georgia, finally one in the District of Columbia. They all bring basically the same allegations against President Obama, although the scope of the allegations seems to grow.
All of the cases that have been decided so far suffered from the identical flaw. Orly Taitz and her various defendants do not have a case that a federal court has jurisdiction to hear. The government’s response to each similar case case was itself similar. In the final case yet to be decided, Taitz files another variation on the same theme and the government’s motion to dismiss filed last Friday (February 26, 2010) was all so familiar.
In prior cases, the defendants’ complaint was generalized and not particular to them and so the court could not hear it. In this most recent case, Taitz v. Obama in DC, Orly alleges personal harm: mainly the risk of her losing her license to practice law, death threats and sabotage or her car. In this case, the case fails on the second requirement for a federal lawsuit: there has to be a direct connection between the plaintiff’s alleged actions and the harm. Orly cannot show that she is in danger of disbarment (or any of the other allegations) because of Obama’s citizenship. She has been sanctioned and faces disbarment for filing frivolous lawsuits. Perhaps in her mind Obama is to blame for all of her troubles, but this is just in her mind.
Expect a speedy dismissal of this lawsuit too.
[Note: other Taitz lawsuit losses are being appealed.]