Taitz argues Berg’s Dismissal supports her Motion for Reconsideration

FOR POLITICAL CANDIDATES AFTER ELECTIONS, AND MILITARY PLAINTIFFS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF BEING IN HARMS WAY

by John Charlton

Dr. Orly Taitz, esq.
Dr. Orly Taitz, esq.

(Nov. 17, 2009) —  Last week Dr. Orly Taitz, esq., filed a Judicial Notice before Judge David O. Carter in support of her Motion for reconsideration in the case Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al., making use of the ruling against Attorney Berg handed down by the Federal 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.  That court had characterized its judgment as “precedential.”

The Post & Email featured that Court’s ruling in a previous report, on Nov. 12th, the day of the ruling.  Attorney Taitz capitalized on that court’s action by presenting it to Judge Carter in the form of a request for Judicial Notice.

Attorney Taitz wrote in her Judicial Notice:

While this three judge panel confirmed the dismissal of the underlying case by the district court, noting that a voter does not have standing, as his injuries are generalized, a number of holdings of this case are pertinent and determinative for the current case in front of your Honor and confirm legal reasoning provided by the undersigned counsel in her Motion for Reconsideration.

She then specifies that the argument for dismissal of Berg’s case acknowledged that candidates had standing after an election:

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 Hussein 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.

She also argues that the ruling implicitly acknowledged standing for her Military Plaintiffs:

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. Plaintiff Matthew Michael Edwards is in the National Guard and would be required to deploy on a few days notice, therefore satisfying the imminent injury prong.

And that Sloviter’s ruling allows them to request declaratory relief:

While your Honor might have reservations regarding the Injunctive relief, at the very minimum based on Judge Sloviter’s ruling this court has at least jurisdiction to render an opinion and provide Declaratory relief and 42 USC §1983 relief. Based on the Declaratory relief from your Honor further action can be taken based on Quo Warranto or by Congress in impeachment proceedings.

Declaratory relief is a judicial determination of facts or law in favor of the injured party; on which basis action can be taken in other courts.

Attorney Taitz then reinforces her argument by citing another key argument in the ruling against Berg:

Second important ruling in Berg is the fact that judge Sloviter brings forward Robinson v McCain 567 F Supp 2d at 1147. Judge Sloviter agrees with the findings in Robinson in that during the election the case is unripe, meaning there is no injury until the candidate takes office. Logical conclusion will be that the undersigned counsel was correct in bringing the current case on the inauguration day as it would be unripe previously and there was no fault of counsel, no latches.

Additionally, the undersigned brought prior to the election Writ of Mandamus on behalf of the presidential candidate Ambassador Keyes and on behalf of the Vice Presidential Candidate Gail Lightfoot against the secretary of state of California Deborah Bowen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.