[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Taitz v. Obama: Quo Warranto Re-Reconsideration–DENIED Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, has delivered some good lines to Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. already. When the case was dismissed last April, he said: This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her. Ironically enough, Ms. Taitz could never establish such an injury because — as far as the Court is aware — she was not elected president nor could she be because she is not a natural born citizen herself. In June, when her first Motion for Reconsideration was denied, he gave her some free advice on lawyering: Ms. Taitz alleges in her reply that she is presenting new evidence to the Court. Specifically, Ms. Taitz informs the Court that she received a letter from the Department of Justice regarding an unrelated case Ms. Taitz commenced that the judge found to be frivolous. However, this is not “evidence.” Evidence is “something…that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed. 2004). In his Denial on December 9 of her Motion for Re-Re-Consideration, Judge Lamberth just seems bored with the whole thing, (but gee, maybe he has important cases to think about). In her second motion for reconsideration, plaintiff adds nothing but further allegations of the President’s ineligibility for office. She offers no new factual or legal argument meriting reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1). Nor has she identified any “previously undisclosed fact so central to the litigation” justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc., 636 F.2d at 577. Accordingly, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motion with regard to her quo warranto claims. Plaintiff’s arguments do nothing to undermine the Court’s dismissal of her FOIA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Moreover, plaintiff fails to identify any mistake in the Court’s dismissal of her complaint that would merit reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motion with regard to her FOIA claims. Plaintiff also raises new legal theories in an effort to establish standing. First, she alleges injury based on a Good Samaritan theory. The Court will not consider this argument, as plaintiff cannot use her Rule 60(b) motion to raise legal arguments that were available to her at the time of filing. Second, she argues that her $20,000 sanction now gives her “interested person” status under the quo warranto statute. The Court again refers plaintiff to its dismissal of her complaint, which explains that only the Attorney General may bring a quo warranto action against a public official. See Andrade, 729 F.2d at 1498. Plaintiff thus offers no legal basis for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). Plaintiff raises a new claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1346, asserting that her $20,000 sanction represents a scheme to deprive her of honest services. Here, she does not seek reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of her complaint. Rather, she is asking the Court to consider a new claim, apparently on the basis of “newly discovered evidence” under Rule 60(b)(2). As noted above, however, plaintiff’s sanction does not constitute new evidence. Therefore, the Court will not consider a legal argument that plaintiff could have raised in her complaint. Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, the Court did not state that plaintiff could proceed under the Establishment Clause. The Court simply recognized that taxpayer standing may be sufficient in an Establishment Clause challenge to government action. Regardless, 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. Plaintiff points to this Court’s recent decision in Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation, No. 05-1548, 2010 WL 3033485 (D.D.C. July 20, 2010), as a “new legal finding” that supports the Court’s jurisdiction in the instant action. Chabad involved a default judgment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and simply has nothing to do with plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff thus gives the Court no basis for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). To the extent that plaintiff offers new factual arguments in her reply to defendant’s opposition, the Court will disregard these arguments. Courts ordinarily decline to consider arguments that are raised for the first time in a reply to an opposition. *Sigh*–I really miss the days when Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. could épater the judiciary. But consider it a victory for her that she wasn’t further sanctioned for being a pain in the ass. Some advice from Suits & Sentences, the legal affairs blog at McClatchy: “Orly Taitz might want to think about getting, you know, a life.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Skip Intro (#0)
Me too.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Of course. So, where is John McCain and the GOP on the issue? They accepted the DEMs vetting process. Case close. Hasta la vista!
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|