If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

Welcome Back!


by Kathy Gotto

U.S. Courthouse in Pensacola, FL

(Apr. 9, 2010) — On April 6, 2010, Dr. Orly Taitz filed an intervener motion to petition the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, to participate in the declaratory judgment action before that court by 13 state Attorneys General. Taitz made her motion as a Plaintiff of Right, or alternatively, with the Court’s permission. The thirteen plaintiffs are suing the Obama regime on the grounds that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the health care bill) violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause at Article I, Section 8.

However, on April 8, senior federal judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida Roger Vinson denied Taitz’s request for several reasons, stating that “Whether to grant permissive intervention is left to the discretion of the district court.”  He also wrote that “the representation by the Attorneys General must be deemed adequate” in regard to their lawsuit against the health care bill.

Taitz had, prior to the AG lawsuit, filed a Quo Warranto and other causes of action with the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia pursuant to Barack Obama’s eligibility under the Constitution to serve as a de jure president, and his assumed authority under the Commerce Clause to sign the Act into law. Taitz had sought identical relief on an identical theory of violation of the Commerce clause as the AG lawsuit. Additionally, because of a jurisdictional problem, Taitz had also filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation requesting that her case be combined with that of the 13 Attorneys General.

Taitz’s position was that the “property or transaction” under Rule 24(a) in the instant action is the recently signed health care Act, and as a medical provider, she had a valid interest in the AG lawsuit. Her complaint stated that the health care act imposes an unreasonable infringement upon her gainful employment as a dental provider. More importantly, Taitz is concerned about the legitimacy of Barack Obama to sign the Act into law.  Her motion concluded with the argument that since discovery has not yet commenced in the AG lawsuit, neither the Attorneys General nor the United States can reasonably contend that their respective rights could in any way be delayed or prejudiced by permitting Dr. Taitz’s intervention in the instant action.

According to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning the Intervention of Right, and upon timely application, anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action when the following conditions are met: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action, and the appellant is so situated that a disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.

There were four hurdles which Taitz would have had to overcome under the Fed.R.Civ.P24(a) in order to prevail in her motion before the court. If a movant is successful in establishing all the prerequisites to the intervention of right, the district court has no discretion to deny the motion. First, the application of intervention must be timely. Second, the applicant must have an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action. Third, the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action, may as a practical matter, impair or impede its ability to protect that interest. Last, it must appear that the applicant’s interest is inadequately represented by existing parties to the suit.

The judge’s opinion stated that Taitz met steps 1 and 2 but failed to overcome step 3, “impairment of interest,” and step 4, that her interests would have been “represented inadequately with the existing parties in this case.” Judge Vinson concluded: “The parties to this litigation, and, indeed, the citizens of this country, have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as practically possible.  That task will be made exponentially more difficult if all those who have an opinion and an interest in the outcome of the case were allowed to intervene and to join in these proceedings.”

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

  1. Sotomayor’s seat on SCOTUS shouldn’t just have to be re-confirmed, but both her appointment by Oblahblah and the confirmation by the Demonrats in the senate should be declared a nullity, as he had no authority to appoint her in the first place.

    The same would be the appointment/confirmation of all other Oblahblah henchmen/women…..including OHillary and Obiden.


    1. Gordon, Biden was elected separately by the electoral college, as the Constitution directs, to the vice presidency. Thus Obama’s eligibility to hold office has nothing to do with Biden’s, so in the vanishlngly thin possibility that the effort to oust Obama were to succeed, Biden would be the legal and legitimate heir to the office. You should have remembered from the 2000 election that the electoral college, not “we the people”, elects the president and vice president. You’re calling on the Supreme Court to stage a coup d’etat and as much as some justices disdain Obama, they won’t tear the county apart just to satisfy a certain segment of the population.

      Mrs. Rondeau replies: However, they appeared together on the nominating certificates which Pelosi signed. It is true that the President and Vice President were chosen by the electors originally and could come from different parties; however, now the presidential candidate chooses his running mate. Because Biden was chosen by Obama, it is possible that Biden will be declared ineligible to serve also. All of BO’s appointments, everything he has signed, all of his nominees and executive orders should be vacated, and according to the 20th Amendment, Congress needs to appoint someone who is qualified to serve until a new election can be held. At least that is the way I understand it.

      1. Seeing the past results of Presidential Elections,used to be according to the Constitution until 1808, the Highest number of Votes(electoral) Earned Presidency, 2nd Highest got Vice,checking the Constitution ,,,,, I have a ‘no locate’ anywhere in the Constitution that States PAIRS running for Pres, and Vice, Must be a Party thing.

  2. “Judge Vinson concluded: “The parties to this litigation, and, indeed, the citizens of this country, have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as practically possible. ”

    I applaud judge Vinson’s concerns about the necessity of having important cases speedily and correctly resolved – but why these concerns show nowhere in the judiciary in cases of outmost importance like Obama’s constitutional eligibility?
    I wonder –

  3. the AGs may find that Orly’s case will in fact give them what they formally asked/wished for but may not want to have happen since a general “fix is in” on various NWO issues — and they and DNC/RNC may not be very happy campers at the end of this entire constitutional litigation drill.

  4. Translation = The AG’s case does not bring any action regarding elibility and since Orly’s does the court wants to ignore her rights and hear her case. It’s just another lame excuse to avoid the issue.

    I have a bad feeling with these AG’s combining their cases together and their case lacking ALL the important facts over the unconstitutional acts in this bill, that they are going to mess this up where the people will get shafted in the end. The question then becomes a question of whether they are purposely going to misrepresent this case so the courts allow this bill to stand? Or are they all just this lame in knowing how to properly bring this case to protect the people? They have left out so many issues that it is starting to appear as if they are intentionally trying to botch this up and are merely putting a show to make it appear as if they cared and really tried to get this ruled as unconstitutional. The fix is in!

  5. Orly certainly will/should include the quo warranto issue in her appeal/ reconsideration motion. — as an aside, SCOTUS Stevens retirement announcement should really help push the quo warranto forward by Orly and/or Strunk or others — Sotomayor should/may be forced to by reconfirmed as well and not be allowed to vote on quo warranto matter.

  6. Her interests will be represented inadequately with the existing parties in this case if the state AG’s fail to include quo warranto. Did she point this out?