Judge Morris C. England, Jr., chief judge of the US District Court for Eastern California, denied Orly Taitz’ petition for an emergency temporary restraining order to stop a number of statutory and constitutional processes necessary to complete the election and inauguration of Barack Obama to a second term as President. England, after hearing all sides a couple of weeks ago, issued his written order yesterday, January 16. One of the reasons given by Judge England was the long string of losses in similar cases by Orly Taitz.
Reports of the hearing in Grinols v. Electoral College noted some rather testy exchanges between Taitz and the Judge, and little sympathy for her motion for a TRO. That clash is not evident in the final decision, which is even-toned and succinctly argued. The judge, in his formal ruling, said that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits, a TRO requirement. They do not have a “fair chance of success”, he said, because the separation of powers set out in the Constitution prevents the Court from granting the relief requested, and that courts have repeatedly dismissed similar cases.
Judge England provides Taitz (and any birther who might think Taitz is getting a raw deal from this judge) with a remedial lecture on the US Constitution and separation of powers, and on the “political question” doctrine. Judge England concluded:
The Court finds that numerous articles and amendments of the Constitution together make it clear that the issue of the President’s qualifications and his removal from office are textually committed to the legislative branch, not the Courts.
…the question presented by Plaintiffs in this case—whether President Obama may legitimately run for office and service as President—is a political question that the Court may not answer.
Judge England then cites quite a number of birther lawsuits to show the likelihood that the current suit will also be dismissed. Taitz’ record comes into play, as the Judge concludes:
In the light of the previous decisions, as well as Plaintiffs’ attorney’s lengthy track record of repeating similar arguments in courts throughout the country, Plaintiffs simply cannot, in good faith, argue that their case is likely to succeed on the merits.
Read the decision:
Grinols et al v Electoral college ORDER DENYING TRO (Jan. 16, 2013) by Jack Ryan
Once again Doc, it’s a frivolous decision. Judge England is talking nonsense.
“In the light of the previous decisions, as well as Plaintiffs’ attorney’s lengthy track record of repeating similar arguments in courts throughout the country, Plaintiffs simply cannot, in good faith, argue that their case is likely to succeed on the merits.”
Actually Orly explained this exactly, that she has been unable to find that “Honest” judge. It is Orly who has moving forward in “Good Faith”, despite many loses in hopes that one “Honest” judge will look at the case instead hiding behind nonsensical minusha or is subject to coersion.
She has now asked the judge to reconsider his decision. Part of her argument is that the US Attorney committed fraud by not securing the informed consent of every member of Congress, and every electoral college voter. This seems to confirm that she simply doesn’t understand the rules of service, and ignores what the US Attorney said, which was that he was attending the hearing as a courtesy.
I find it hilarious that she “served” not each member of Congress, but rather “US Congress”, and not the individual electors, but “Electoral College” and now is complaining that all those individuals – which she didn’t serve individually – had no knowledge of the suit.
Only Orly can manage something like this. In her world, it was the responsibility of the US Attorney to contact and get the OK to represent every single defendant that she collectively “sued”, and not hers to let them know.
Well — Complaint at page 3 states (a) Electoral College is sued as a “government agency.” (b) If Court won’t accept that, then the CA electors — and all other electors PLEDGED TO OBAMA –are sued individually.
Still — since the Complaint expressly excludes any electors pledged to Romney, the argument that the DOJ somehow failed to represent those individuals adequately is …puzzling.
As someone said on FogBow, she’s the lawyer you want the other side to have. More worryingly, all of this nonsense is a massive waste of public money. One of the reasons that lawyers have privileges in terms of access to the courts is the assumption/presumption that their qualification means they know the rules of procedure of evidence, and how to construct and argue a motion. But she clearly doesn’t, and almost everything is, basically, an argument backed up by phony evidence. Surely there comes a point where sanctions, and even withdrawal of appearance rights, need to be considered.
Her motion for reconsideration has already been denied because – big surprise! – she failed to follow the rules.
taitz posted the transcript from the 1/3 hearing and she is “asking individuals who were at the hearing to check the transcript for errors and omissions.
I am posting my Emergency motion for reconsideration, which I had to file yesterday before the written order was issued and before the transcript was issued. I will have to file an amended emergency motion for recon based on the written order by the judge which came yesterday, 13 days after the emergency TRO hearing, and after the express handling transcript was issued today, 14 days after the hearing”
in the transcript, regarding the service of process, there is quite a go-around between the court, taitz and olsen and then we get into the IDs & “forgery” by “experts”, arpaio & irey & Daubert
i do wish birthers would read original sources rather than relying on translations from handlers – the transcript is quite compelling
Judge England totally missed the central legal issue of the case. He obviously had already carved out the heart of the case before the hearing began. His legal error was that he assumed that Obama is currently the President and therefore must be eligible. He even asked Dr. Taitz the question. Who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
Dr. Taitz argued that Obama is not eligible and therefore could never be President.
The question remains. Is Barack Obama eligible to be President?
Obviously Judge England is not interested in that question.
ECF 53 – Minute Order that Rule 60 Motion is Defective & Removing Hearing
It gets better. In her motion – which is a textbook example of the most awful legal drafting you can imagine – she states that if Judge England fails to rule in her favor, he may be prosecuted for treason and racketeering. That should get him onside.
Doc holds up mirror to John.
Oh well, she said almost the same thing to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Mississippi case:
“If this court does not grant the motion, this court will be come complicit in the cover up of fraud and forgery in Obama’s IDs.”
Asked and answered.
It’s your own fault that you don’t like the answer.
What is the central legal issue of the case?
What is that he already carved out?
He did not assume! Obama is currently the President whose tenure ends at noon on January 20? And oh yes Obama is eligible, congress did not declare him ineligible. The courts will not entertain political questions! For four years you went to the wrong venue, that’s why you kept losing.
The answer is? PRESIDENT Barack Hussein Obama lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Yes, he is and has been eligible to be President! He is NBC! Judge England in his ruling said that the Constitution did not require him to show his birth certificate not even on a toilet paper* (*my word)
Absolutely correct! Bravo! It’s a political question which congress has already dealt with (otherwise Obama should have been impeached a long time ago).
Can anybody please update me with the current score card?
190-0, I think. This one doesn’t count as a loss yet since the overall case hasn’t been decided.
To be honest, very few people are. And why should they be? How does it impact their lives? How does it impact YOUR life in any real sense? i’ve never gotten even a halfway satisfying answer to that question.
i doubt whether many can recite the eligibility requirements to become president
i think when pressed, they would probably say “citizen”
few have followed the birthers and nearly 5 MILLION more voted for obama over mitt – does anyone really think americans would have voted for him if they thought him ineligible? would world leaders admire and respect him? seriously, send trump around the world and see if he gets the same respect
never mind that not one respectable attorney has come forth to prosecute the would be biggest case of fraud in the history of the world …………. not one
A ‘frivolous decision’? New on one me, in the legal sense at least. I’ve heard of ‘frivolous legislation’, ‘frivolous litigation’, and ‘frivolous cases’, but never ‘frivolous decision’s.
Contemplate on why that might be, john.
This morning I thought to myself that she probably has it backwards. She needs to look for a *dishonest* judge. Of course, even a dishonest judge might not be able to help her, as this kind of case is too high profile. Still, she’d have a better chance, because no honest judge is going to side with the arguments she has presented to date. Indeed, she should feel gratified at how many honest judges she has faced, despite her inability to
I believe that “nonsensical minusha” is what your brain has turned into.
Heck, stay right here in the USA and see. Here’s a great Twitter exchange from earlier today (If you don’t know, Deadspin is indeed the site that broke the Te’o story):
(The actual tweet wasn’t censored)
The judge is basing his decision on the law and the Constitutional separation of power, which places certain functions in the Congress. If that is nonsensical minutiae, then I call the natural born citizen clause quadruple nonsensical minutiae.
Do I sense Orly credibility issue that Judge England noticed?
“In light of the previous decisions, as well as Plaintiffs’ attorney’s lengthy track record of repeating similar arguments in courts throughout the country, Plaintiffs simply cannot in good faith, argue that their case is likely to succeed on the merit.(5)
(footnote 5) “Plaintiffs’ counsel has other “good faith” problems in this case. At the January 3 hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel urged the Court to accept her oral “declaration under penalty of perjury” that Federal Defendants had been properly served as proof of compliance with Fed. R.Civ. P. 4 (i)’s service requirements. One day after the hearing, Plaintiffs filed an affidavit from a process server alleging that the process server served President Obama, Vice President Biden, the Electoral College, Congress, and the Department of Justice on January 4, 2013. This affidavit casts additional doubts on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s assertion at the January 3 hearing that Defendants had been properly served prior to the temporary restraining order hearing.”
OMG you owe me a new screen – yes i have seen “deadspin” on tv today but had not seen the tweets
So “good faith” means she has to find evidence in the internet, use other birthers for her props, use “experts” to advance her cause and blatantly lie in court?
Still hanging in there jy?
She spends all of her time claiming fraud, forgery and having a CT SSN (whatever that is). I do not recall in her last few cases her actually claiming where the President was born. She has been spending some much time with all of the forgery, fraud, and SSN stuff, she has neglected to provide evidence of where Obama was born (according to her thinking).
The question remains, is she claiming he was born outside of the US? What is her evidence?
She may have forgotten the central legal issue of her case.
It is “common sense” that anybody has to be born some where. The school record from Indonesia says he was born in Hawaii. No other evidence points to any other country or even any other place.
I assure you, the town where I was born is nowhere. 😉