Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Tex., 5th Cir., SCOTUS)

TexasFilly
Posts: 20514
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3551

Post by TexasFilly »

I have no desire to set foot in Brownsville ever again in my life.
I love the poorly educated!!!

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

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 28831
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3552

Post by Volkonski »

Orly needs to expand her lawsuit! In defiance of the legislature an immigration-related executive order has been issued! Orly must respond and stop this unconstitutional usurpation of the legislature's legislative authority!



http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/ar ... 955162.php





When President Barack Obama could not get what he wanted from Congress on immigration, he simply issued an executive order that outraged many of my fellow Republicans. It seems Gov. Rick Perry is following Obama's example.

The Legislature has on multiple occasions rejected mandatory E-Verify, a federal electronic system used to weed out foreign workers who are in the country without proper documents. Now, Perry's made an end run around them and mandated it on his own through an executive order. On Dec. 3, [hlyellow]Perry issued Executive Order RP80[/hlyellow] requiring Texas state agencies and private entities seeking state contracts to use E-Verify, not only on new hires, but on current and prospective employees, including subcontractors.

Attorney General Greg Abbott is suing Obama over his immigration executive order, so you have to wonder whether he will now sue Perry for bypassing the Texas Legislature.

In 2011, the 82nd Texas Legislature defeated mandatory E-Verify. They recognized that immigration reform at the national level must come first. Attempts to pass E-Verify legislation in a special session were also unsuccessful. The 83rd Texas Legislature likewise refused to impose mandatory E-Verify on Texas businesses.



Abbott should sue Rick Perry too. ;)
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 3435
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3553

Post by Jim »





I have no desire to set foot in Brownsville ever again in my life.





Brownsville wishes Orly would take the same attitude.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13937
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3554

Post by Notorial Dissent »

I have no desire to set foot in Brownsville ever again in my life.Whatever would have possessed you to go there in the first place?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 12000
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: #StuggersForBiden "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3555

Post by Orlylicious »

Whatever would have possessed you to go there in the first place?







Isn't Brownsville where all the hot UPS drivers hang out? ;)
6/12/20 Urine Drug Screening Tonight! Don't miss The Fogbow's Favourite TV Show™ starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: Family Crisis!" Fri 9/8c. TVShowsAce featured Fogbow's love 5/26/20: https://bit.ly/2TNxrbS

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46707
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3556

Post by Sterngard Friegen »





I have no desire to set foot in Brownsville ever again in my life.







Neither do I. And I've never been there.

TexasFilly
Posts: 20514
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3557

Post by TexasFilly »











I have no desire to set foot in Brownsville ever again in my life.







Neither do I. And I've never been there.







:wenotworthy:
I love the poorly educated!!!

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

User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 8729
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3558

Post by Estiveo »

Nothing good ever happened to me in Texas.
Image Image Image Image Image

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13937
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3559

Post by Notorial Dissent »

I have no desire to set foot in Brownsville ever again in my life. Neither do I. And I've never been there.Neither have I, and I have it on very good authority why I don't want to, from an escapee who now knows better.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

TexasFilly
Posts: 20514
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3560

Post by TexasFilly »









I have no desire to set foot in Brownsville ever again in my life.



Whatever would have possessed you to go there in the first place?







Had some cases down there.
I love the poorly educated!!!

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

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

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3561

Post by SueDB »

It is on the way to the beaches at South Padre Island and Gulf Fishing. :D
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Patagoniagirl
Posts: 4152
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:15 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3562

Post by Patagoniagirl »

I spent a bit of time in my late teens visiting my GG-parents in the Brownsville/Harlingen area. Took a drive to South Padre Islands. Almost forty years ago, it was still a knock-about, interesting area where folks pretty much lived, and let live. Matamoros, and all. You could still have a camp fire on the beach, buy seafood coming in straight off the boats and eat really well for good prices. Tourism ruined the place, in my opinion, not immigrants. Legal, or illegal.

TexasFilly
Posts: 20514
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3563

Post by TexasFilly »





WASHINGTON --

A federal judge in Pittsburgh is declaring that President Barack Obama's recent executive actions on immigration are unconstitutional.U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab says Obama's order in November designed to spare millions living illegally in the United States from deportation amounts to "unilateral legislative action" in violation of the Constitution.[hlyellow] Schwab issued his opinion Tuesday in a criminal case involving an immigrant here illegally from Honduras.The administration has said the new policy does not apply to criminal cases.[/hlyellow]Schwab's opinion puts forth some of the same arguments made by Texas and 23 other states in their challenge to Obama's actions on immigration. Schwab was appointed by President George W. Bush.Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler says he's skeptical that Schwab's opinion will stand.

http://abc13.com/news/us-judge-says-oba ... id/439048/



Schwab is a W appointee. His wiki shows he's gotten himself in some hot water before.
I love the poorly educated!!!

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

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 14397
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3564

Post by Dolly »

cross posted from the Orly's latest poopies thread (cuz I posted it there first... sorry)

http://thefogbow.com/forum/topic/86-orl ... /?p=602768







Orly must have googled her name again.

:evil: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/i-need-help ... -recently/ :evil:



I need help in finding this Pennsylvania case of Juarez Escobar, where fed, judge stated that Obama’s amnesty is unconstitutional. Do not see anything in PACER under Juarez Escobar in PA recently

Posted on | December 16, 2014 | No Comments

BREAKING: Federal judge finds Obama amnesty is unconstitutional …

[hlyellow]www.godlikeproductions[/hlyellow].com/forum1/message2744677/pg1

3 hours ago – 31 posts – ‎11 authors

He will be deciding on the aspects of Obama’s immigration dictates being unconstitutional, in the actual case brought by [hlyellow]Orly Taitz[/hlyellow]. Judge Hanen is the SAME ..

Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
tek
Posts: 4435
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Lake Humidity, FL
Occupation: Damned if I know

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3565

Post by tek »

O. Taitz DDSWTFESQ is truly an amazing researcher.



It is clear why her clear presentations of well-cited, on-point material has led to decisive wins in all her legal actions.
There's no way back
from there to here

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 14397
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3566

Post by Dolly »

:evil: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/press-relea ... er-signed/ :evil:





Press Release: Obama files an opposition to motion by Taitz and admits there was no Executive Order signed

Posted on | December 16, 2014 | No Comments

Press Release: Obama files an opposition to motion by Taitz in Taitz v Jeh Johnson, Sylvia Burwell, Barack Obama and admits there was no Executive Order signed

Taitz v Johnson Opposition to 11.26.2014 motion

[ links to DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION

:evil: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-contents ... motion.pdf :evil: ]



[hlyellow]Obama [/hlyellow] writes:



“Dr. Taitz’s recent motion challenges immigration-related guidance memoranda

issued by DHS on November 20, 2014, although Dr. Taitz incorrectly describes the

guidance memoranda as an “Executive Order,” which it is not.”



Further, Obama claims that Taitz lacks standing as a tax-payer, however this is patently false, as the Supreme Court in Flast v Cohen, via decision penned by the Chief Justice Earl Warren found that US tax payers have standing to challenge actions by the government, as long as those actions relate to spending allocated by the Congress based on it’s spending and taxing power and those actions are illegal.



Further, Obama’s actions in recent amnesty are a continuation of the illegal DACA policy, which was started by Obama in 2012, where Obama flagrantly violates US immigration laws and grants deferral of deportation to large classes of illegal aliens and grants them works permits and Social Security cards.




Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 28831
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3567

Post by Volkonski »

Since there is no executive order there is nothing for the judge to stay. ;) Or can a judge stay guidance memoranda? :-?
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 12000
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: #StuggersForBiden "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3568

Post by Orlylicious »

Here's an annotated version... Imagine if you will a Whack-A-Mole, where Orly is the only mole... Each ?( is a Whack (there were too many haha so OK some are **). Let's go!





INTRODUCTION



Defendants hereby submit this opposition to Dr. Taitz’s latest Supplemental Motion (ECF No 52). Notwithstanding this Court’s clear warning in August 2014 that this lawsuit is not a vehicle to resolve political issues ?( , Dr. Taitz’s Supplemental Motion raises non-justiciable issues for which she has no standing to sue. ** See Tr. of August 27, 2014 hr’g (Aug. 27 Tr.) at 3. For that reason, along with other legal infirmities ?( , this Court should deny ** Dr. Taitz’s Supplemental Motion.



Dr. Taitz’s recent motion challenges immigration-related guidance memoranda issued by DHS on November 20, 2014, although Dr. Taitz incorrectly describes ?( the guidance memoranda as an “Executive Order,” which it is not. ** As with her previous claims, Dr. Taitz lacks standing ** to challenge the guidance memoranda.** See generally Defendants’ Supplemental Brief, ECF No. 51. Indeed, Dr. Taitz expressly asserts “taxpayer status standing” to raise her new challenge, despite the Supreme Court’s repeated rejection ** of taxpayer status as a basis for Article III injury.



Equally fatal ?( to Dr. Taitz’s Supplemental Motion is the fact that it seeks relief based on actions that had not yet taken place ** when Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 40. The guidance memoranda were issued over two months after Plaintiff’s filing ** of the First Amended Complaint.



Therefore, because the subject of Dr. Taitz’s Supplemental Motion is not properly before the Court ** in the context of the First Amended Complaint., it is not an appropriate subject for emergency relief. Moreover, it is axiomatic ** that a plaintiff cannot amend a complaint to add a new cause of action via a supplemental motion. ** Nor is this a circumstance where this Court should permit further amendment of the Complaint; amendment would be futile ** in light of Dr. Taitz’s lack of standing. **

Accordingly, and for the reasons submitted to this Court in the government’s previous filings, this Court should strike the Supplemental Motion and should dismiss the entirety of this case with prejudice. :boxing:





Love, The United States :batting:
6/12/20 Urine Drug Screening Tonight! Don't miss The Fogbow's Favourite TV Show™ starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: Family Crisis!" Fri 9/8c. TVShowsAce featured Fogbow's love 5/26/20: https://bit.ly/2TNxrbS

User avatar
gupwalla
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 pm
Location: The mind of Cassandra

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3569

Post by gupwalla »

If this were an establishment clause case, Flast might even be relevant.
In a wilderness of mirrors, what will the spider do beyond the circuit of the shuddering Bear in fractured atoms? -TS Eliot (somewhat modified)

All warfare is based on deception. - Sun Tzu

TexasFilly
Posts: 20514
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3570

Post by TexasFilly »





If this were an establishment clause case, Flast might even be relevant.





As I've said before, that's what happens when you only read the keynotes/headnotes and not the actual case. T88 is way too bizzy for that kind of stuff. Of course, if she'd gone to a real law school...
I love the poorly educated!!!

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

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3571

Post by BillTheCat »

She must be apoplectic regarding Cuba today, lol
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35212
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3572

Post by realist »

As I've said before, that's what happens when you only read the keynotes/headnotes and not the actual case.



That and the fact that even if Orly read the case her understanding of it would be no better than it is just reading the headnotes, and perhaps even worse.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

TexasFilly
Posts: 20514
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3573

Post by TexasFilly »





She must be apoplectic regarding Cuba today, lol





Yep. Her, Ted Cruz and his daddy, and Marco Rubio too. Also.
I love the poorly educated!!!

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

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3574

Post by BillTheCat »











She must be apoplectic regarding Cuba today, lol





Yep. Her, Ted Cruz and his daddy, and Marco Rubio too. Also.









...and sadly, Bob Menendez, a blue dog on Cuban issues. Time for people like him to get a grip and get over it.
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2971
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Taitz v. Johnson (I & II) (and Texas v. Obama) (S.D. Texas)

#3575

Post by woodworker »











If this were an establishment clause case, Flast might even be relevant.





As I've said before, that's what happens when you only read the keynotes/headnotes and not the actual case. T88 is way too bizzy for that kind of stuff. Of course, if she'd gone to a real law school...









I must beg to differ. I don't think it would have made a difference if Taitz had gone to a real law school, she is still incredibly stupid, ignorant, biased and generally not worth John Garner Nance's description of the Vice-Presidency. I am not sure that she would have been able to pass a real exam, but her attending a real law school would not have made a difference.

bring out the tumbrils -- lots of them.

Post Reply

Return to “Orly Taitz”