Orly Taitz: Dismissal of Other Birther Suits Helps Me
Friday, November 13, 2009 at 11:02 am
Orly Taitz, who really should be worrying about the final judgment ordering the U.S. Attorney to collect $20,000 from her, has filed a new sheaf of nonsense arguing that the long-awaited dismissal of Phil Berg’s birther lawsuit proves that her lawsuits really have legs.
The plaintiff in Berg was seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief under Article 2 Section 1 Natural Born Citizen and under 42 USC §1983, seeking determination of eligibility for presidency of Barack Husein Obama. In his opinion judge Sloviter finds that though the election is over, the court has jurisdiction to hear it as it “fits squarely” as an issue “capable of repetition yet evading review”.Merle v US, 351, 3d 92,94 (3d Cir 2003) Based on this argument there is Article 3 jurisdiction to hear the case as long as the plaintiff can show standing with specialized injury.
While Berg’s holding finds that a regular voter does not have standing, Presidential and vice presidential candidates such as plaintiffs Ambassador Alan Keyes and Gail Lightfoot have standing.
Judge Sloviter proceeds by arguing that both parties with actual and imminent injuries would have standing in this case. Nearly 40 plaintiffs in this case are members of the military. A number of them are either active military or in active reserves. For example plaintiff Lita Lott is in active drilling reserves. Within only a few days of notice she will be required to leave her family behind and deploy, this can happen any day. This satisfies the imminent injury prong for the purpose of standing.
In other words, she’s sticking to the discredited and ridiculous arguments that have been laughed out of courtrooms on both coasts. The more interesting question right now is how her confrontation with the U.S. Attorney is going to go.