TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post Reply
User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 10438
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by GreatGrey »

Umm... Isn't 14.1 a dismissal?Yes, of the CA case for lack of venue. Taitz then refiles in NDTX (this case) and also suffers from lack of venue.Oooohhhhh, never mind
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.
A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by A Legal Lohengrin »

Workmanlike but entirely sufficient. Arguably, more effort than necessary, but I won't complain.It's not stellar, but it doesn't have to be, and the attorney, I am sure, has real cases to litigate.
User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7751
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by Sam the Centipede »

A P P L A U S E





:-bd :-bd :-bd :-bd :-bdIndeed... IMO a well-done, professional stick the knife in silently and then twist it job. :-bdFollowed by slice'n'dice, put it through the mincing machine, then stamp on it before throwing it in the trash can!


=D> =D> =D> =D>


It's a shame that these thorough responses are needless. This one goes:


(1) dismiss coz of jurisdiction,


(2) if not (1), dismiss coz of venue,


(3) if not (2), dismiss coz of improbability of success,


(4) if not (3), dismiss coz of lack of harm,


(5) if not (3), dismiss coz of lack of ripeness,


(6) if not (5), dismiss coz of lack of duplication,


(7) if not (6), dismiss coz of misrepresentation of the law,


(8) if not (7), dismiss coz Taitz is a nasty-minded idiot (I paraphrase).





All that argument, when the court is actually going to smell the turdilicious pile of taitzoid crotography and think "right, how can we kick this nonsense into the long grass with minimal effort and no comeback?".





-xx Oh, but of course, it does have some value - the entertainment for the Fogbow! -xx
cassandra
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:13 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by cassandra »

Over the years, I've seen Federal Programs' output vary in quality quite a bit. It was a real pleasure to read these documents: well done, well supported, well reasoned, dispassionate, and (one can only hope) virtually dispositive.
User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10560
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by Mikedunford »

Given the time of year (and my own status), I wonder if they've got an L2 or L3 extern working on this. I keep thinking it's a great case for a law student. Lots of potential for fun, lots of potential for creatively honing writing skills, great opportunity to let a law student do work that can be submitted to a court, virtually impossible to screw up, and great for the student's morale.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.
Clairez
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:08 am
Location: Indiana

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by Clairez »

Given the time of year (and my own status), I wonder if they've got an L2 or L3 extern working on this. I keep thinking it's a great case for a law student. Lots of potential for fun, lots of potential for creatively honing writing skills, great opportunity to let a law student do work that can be submitted to a court, virtually impossible to screw up, and great for the student's morale.Yeah, just think if you started now defending against all Taitz's cases you could have a record of like 1,000 wins to 0 losses by the time you finished law school! Plus you would get to tour most of the country. :lol:
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 27669
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by RTH10260 »

Also from Doc 15, MtD...





III. Even if Jurisdiction Exists and Venue is Proper, Taitz Has Not Shown a Likelihood


of Success on the Merits, as She Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be


Granted


Self-"transferring" without reviewing and rewriting can be suicidal:II. Taitz Fails to Establish Venue in This District





If the Court looks past Taitz’s lack of standing, she also fails to establish venue. Taitz’s complaint alleges that “[v]enue is proper under FOIA and 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) because several plaintiffs live in Orange County within the Southern Division of the Central District of California.” Compl. 6. Neither statute is applicable in this case, nor could residency in Orange County establish venue in the Northern District of Texas #-o
User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7347
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by raicha »

Self-"transferring" without reviewing and rewriting can be suicidal: II. Taitz Fails to Establish Venue in This District If the Court looks past Taitz’s lack of standing, she also fails to establish venue. Taitz’s complaint alleges that “[v]enue is proper under FOIA and 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) because several plaintiffs live in Orange County within the Southern Division of the Central District of California.” Compl. 6. Neither statute is applicable in this case, nor could residency in Orange County establish venue in the Northern District of Texas #-oThis is one example of why many here believe Taitz is no longer even pretending to file legally valid pleadings. It's all about the smear and the PR, so it doesn't matter whether the pleading meets the basic requirements of the law.
User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by SueDB »




Self-"transferring" without reviewing and rewriting can be suicidal: II. Taitz Fails to Establish Venue in This District





If the Court looks past Taitz’s lack of standing, she also fails to establish venue. Taitz’s complaint alleges that “[v]enue is proper under FOIA and 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) because several plaintiffs live in Orange County within the Southern Division of the Central District of California.” Compl. 6. Neither statute is applicable in this case, nor could residency in Orange County establish venue in the Northern District of Texas #-oThis is one example of why many here believe Taitz is no longer even pretending to file legally valid pleadings. It's all about the smear and the PR, so it doesn't matter whether the pleading meets the basic requirements of the law.I agree raicha, but IMHO she left the safety of pursuing an actual case a while ago. The last coherent (if you can call them that) seemed to be when CEL3 was with her. That kinda seemed to me to be the apex of what is I would term her work.





I may be a snarker, and I am learning as fast as I can. I may ask some stupid questions (no such thing) and Orly left me in the tracks of stupidity a long time ago.
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!
User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by verbalobe »

Come, come, these are mere peccadilloes. If you can see that she cited the wrong statute, that means you know which would have been the right statute. Everyone better stop pretending they don't know what she meant to say in her pleadings, or they'll be complicit in massive fraud.
User avatar
gatsby
Posts: 18444
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: West Egg, Long Island

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by gatsby »

Things have been quiet for a couple of weeks with this case. Does Orly need to respond to the last filing by defendants?
User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7347
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by raicha »

There's still time.
User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by SueDB »

There's still time.November 6th is coming up awful fast though. tick tock - tick tock... -xx
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!
AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by AnitaMaria »

Since none of the other defendants have responded, I guess they all decided to ignore this until Taitz serves them properly, which we know will never happen. :-bd
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 18261
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by Suranis »

How can you lot doubt the worlds finest practitioner of Gynecological Dentistry and Proctological Law.(Do you know how hard that was to spell for a horribly dyslexic person like myself? Applause please)
The difference between the Middle Ages, and the Age of the Internet, is that in the Middle Ages no-one thought the Earth was flat.
User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6294
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by June bug »

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 27669
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by RTH10260 »

How can you lot doubt the worlds finest practitioner of Gynecological Dentistry and Proctological Law.(Do you know how hard that was to spell for a horribly dyslexic person like myself? Applause please) =D> =D> \ :D / \ :D / :-bd :-bd =D> =D> =D> =D>
User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46814
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

RTH -- We are no longer limited to 10 smileys. Suranis deserves much much more.Sekrit Stuffs!
. =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 11238
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by Chilidog »

is this another deadline she has forgotten about / missed?
User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7347
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by raicha »

There's still time.
User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46814
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Plenty of time for Taitz. After all, she doesn't have anything else to do this week.
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35273
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by realist »

Docket Update...





10/05/2012 [link]16,[/link] REPLY filed by Orly Taitz re: 14 Response/Objection, (Attachments: # 1 Declaration(s) certificate of service) (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 10/05/2012)





Full of Taitz goodies and logic...





3. DEFENSE IS STATING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT JUDGE LAMBERTH STATED IN TAITZ V OBAMA 10- CV-151 RCR





[highlight]Taxpayer standing was confirmed by the chief Judge of the US District court for the District of Columbia, Judge Lamberth[/highlight]. In Taitz v Obama Taitz originally sued under the Writ of Mandamus and the Commerce Clause and the original complaint dealt with Obama's eligibility per DC Quo Warranto statutes. ACA was not signed into law until after the original complaint was briefed. The court ruled that she did not have standing under those two clauses [highlight]and stated that there is taxpayer standing under the Establishment Clause.[/highlight]





"Ms. Taitz requests reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of her Commerce Clause claim, which asked the Court to declare the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, invalid. Ms. Taitz claims that because President Obama has not proved that he is a natural born citizen, he thus cannot legitimately sign the bill into law. Additionally, Ms. Taitz asserts that her imminent injury is sufficient for standing..." "while the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that taxpayer standing can be sufficient in an Establishment Clause challenge to government action in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 8 (1968), it has refused to create a similar rule for Commerce Clause challenges. Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 347-49 (2006); see also Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 618 (1988) 06.18.10 order by judge Lamberth in Taitz v Obama 10-cv-151 RCR, order on motion for reconsideration.





Upon receiving this ruling, Taitz filed another motion for reconsideration, asking to rule in her favor based on the Establishment clause, however [highlight]the court ruled that since she did not bring the Establishment clause in the original complaint, it would not consider it under rule 60B[/highlight].





"plaintiff cannot use her Rule 60(b) motion to raise legal arguments that were available to her at the time of filing. Therefore, the Court will not address plaintiff’s new claims." id





Therefore Plaintiff did not have a complaint under ACA or Establishment clause. As a matter of fact, when the original complaint was filed on 01.27.2010 ACA was not signed into law yet, so she could not bring her complaint under ACA and the Establishment clause would not have been the correct basis for her complaint in January 2010 two months before ACA was signed into law. [highlight]Based on the above one can see that Judge Lamberth actually found that the establishment clause would be a correct vehicle, correct cause of action for Taitz complaint.[/highlight]
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by verbalobe »

Ms. Taitz claims that because President Obama has not proved that he is a natural born citizen, he thus cannot legitimately sign the bill into law.It cannot be repeated enough -- as the simplest core birther claim, this concoction fails on its face.





How can anyone seriously write this, much less in a legal document? As a logical or legal statement, it is has no conceivable grounds.





I guess these people never read the Constitution.
User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46814
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

In the interest of judicial economy Taitz is willing to stipulate to consolidation of these challenges and will be to bring a petition with the Multi-district jurisdiction panel.
TexasFilly
Posts: 20514
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al. NDTX

Post by TexasFilly »

Ms. Taitz claims that because President Obama has not proved that he is a natural born citizen, he thus cannot legitimately sign the bill into law.It cannot be repeated enough -- as the simplest core birther claim, this concoction fails on its face.





How can anyone seriously write this, much less in a legal document? As a logical or legal statement, it is has no conceivable grounds.





I guess these people never read the Constitution.
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
I love the poorly educated!!!

Kevin McCarthy: Paul Ryan playing with a head injury -- Jon Lovett
Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”