Friday, October 28, 2011

Liberty Legal Foundation Responds to Unnecessary Criticism of Their Eligibility Lawsuit by Attorney Orly Taitz


I was frustrated to read Orly Taitz’s blog criticizing our Class Action against the Democratic Party. I applaud all efforts to get to the truth of this issue and would never publically discourage anyone working toward the same goals, as she did. It is highly counterproductive for those seeking the same outcome to disagree publically over details, however I must correct the misrepresentations she made regarding our action and our Plaintiffs. Orly’s message reflects that she did not read the complaints that we filed. Her message reflects her assumptions as opposed to what we are actually doing. She misrepresents who the plaintiffs and defendants are. Talking about standing requires knowing who the parties are, what the causes of action are, and what relief is requested. She made erroneous assumptions, then libeled us based upon her erroneous assumptions.

Her conclusions are also wrong for several reasons. First, we have other FEC-registered candidates as class members that are running as independents. Therefore they will be part of the general election.

Second, she mistakenly assumes that standing requires a plaintiff to be in exactly the same position as a defendant. In this case she claims that only a candidate on the ballot in the general election will have standing. This is simply wrong. Standing requires a plaintiff to show that they will be harmed, in a particular way that is not speculative. Any candidate running in the election will be less likely to win if their opponent appears on the ballot. This is true whether the plaintiff appears on the ballot or not. This harm is not speculative, it is certain. She mistakenly equates the speculative nature of winning an election with the certain nature of the harm. The harm of lowering a candidates chances of winning is certain. Courts cannot simply conclude that a candidate has no chance of winning without throwing out the entire purpose of holding democratic elections.

Third, Orly assumes that standing can be disproven simply because many plaintiffs have standing. This is also wrong. Standing is proven if a plaintiff can show that he will be harmed. This analysis doesn’t require the harm to be limited to a small number of people. Courts don’t like standing that any citizen can assert, but 250 FEC-registered Presidential candidates is not the same as 330 million American taxpayers. By Orly’s argument, her military members didn’t have standing because there are “too many” members of the military. Such an argument runs contrary to her own assertions.

Fourth, different courts rule very differently on standing depending upon the specific circumstances. Since no court has ruled on exactly these facts, especially with a class of FEC-registered candidates with different circumstances, to dismiss our case out of hand without even reading the complaint puts Orly in the same category as the corrupt judges that she complains about in her blog. I agree that the courts are corrupt, but that is no excuse to treat others that are striving for the same goals as poorly as the corrupt courts have treated Orly. She owes us an apology.

Fifth, Orly states that filing this as a class action has no purpose. This is also wrong. As mentioned above, by filing this as a class action we end up with more plaintiffs which leads to more individual circumstances likely to have standing. Any specific facts that the defendants or the court claim to be “good enough” for standing will likely be met by SOMEONE in our class action. If only one plaintiff has standing, ALL the others get to proceed. Rather than taking the time to consider this, or better yet, ask, Orly simply makes another incorrect assumption and blogs to the world. Also, by filing our case as a class action we give voice to all of the disenfranchised people that want to be represented. Finally, any judge seeing 30,000+ plaintiffs is less likely to simply dismiss their complaints. None of these reasons were perceived by Orly. Nor did she ask. Again, she owes us an apology.

I’ve respected her work on this issue to date. We certainly learned a lot from her valiant efforts. I am disappointed that she choose to defame our efforts rather than discuss her concerns with us directly. All of our legal filings are posted on our website. Our strategy is outlined clearly. Please go to www.libertylegalfoundation.net and decide for yourself if you believe our cases have merit.

In Liberty,

Van Irion
Lead Counsel
Liberty Legal Foundation
Knoxville, TN
www.libertylegalfoundation.net

Liberty Legal Foundation, et al. v Democratic National Committee - Obama Eligibility Complaint - Federal

Liberty Legal Foundation, et al. v Democratic National Committee - Obama Eligibility Complaint - TN

Obama's SSN Fails E-Verify System - 17 Oct 2011 Wash Times National Wkly edition - pg 5

23 comments:

  1. Thank You for what you are doing. Thank You for be civil , not acting as they do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Orly attacks anyone trying to get in her limelight. She tangled with the 1st patriot to bring this issue to light, Phil Berg, now shes attacking others.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It pains this Obot to admit it, but Orly is finally correct on a matter of law.

    Being FEC-"registered" is not sufficient. A candidate must also get on the ballot, and that is done by filing the appropriate Statement of Candidacy and paying the filing fee for each of the 50 states. To date, Mr. Dummett and his co-plaintiff have not done that in a single state. Until he actually makes his way onto the ballot of a sufficient number of states to made a dent in the Electoral College vote, neither plaintiff comes close to potential "injury" by sharing the ballot with President Obama.

    Mr. Irion needs to return to law school and repeat first-year Civil Procedure.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr. Irion - I doubt you learned anything about "standing" and, at this point you have the additional problem of ripeness. This case will be disposed of in exactly the same way as all of Orly's cases -- dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, but the big question is why does she, Orly, go on the attack of others efforts so easily?

    I've followed her work since '09 and find her demeanor to be reactive, offensive and counter productive. Sure I know she has been fighting the good fight, BUT it seems as though she doesn't like others playing in her sandbox.

    That's too bad b/c others are going to play and they will be using varying legal strategy. Just my opinion, but bring them on!

    No one has anointed her the "all knowing"
    on this critical national security issue aka an ineligible President. She is one of many and holds no more authority over this issue than others.

    Therefore, just my opinion, but if Orly chooses to go on the attack, which seems to be a natural reaction for her, then I'd suggest ignoring her, b/c those of us who have and continue to watch ALL activities are growing closer and closer to simply ignoring her and her distractive reactionary tantrums.

    The stakes are too high to be diverting valuable time and attention to such unwarranted outbursts, let alone undermining others sincere efforts to thwart this ineligible candidate from gaining access to state ballots.

    If she keeps it up one will only naturally begin to wonder what her true motives are. Just sayin...I know I question them...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sounds like Orly is beginning to be part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Why bash anyone that's trying to get the same thing done that she's been trying to do?

    Sorry but IMO she needs to keep her emotions in check and act like a professional. I think she would get much further and garner more respect if she did. I've been an ardent supporter up until now but if she keeps up this action, I will no longer consider her a Patriot and wonder what her real agenda is.

    And to you Obots, keep dreaming. This attorney knows what he's doing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. orly completely botched her hawaiian cases, she had discovery in the bag....then blew it.

    my question to you sir is: what are you damages?

    you have none
    therefore you have no standing

    ReplyDelete
  8. You are 100% icorrect as are all obots who have alligator mouths and lizards asses...You know about as much about standing, registered candidates, filing fees as u would understanding thermo nuclear molecular structure...Your comments are not welcome here..Only common sense people who have a love for liberty truth and justice..Orly is wrong in her assumptions as assuredly u are asshole!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another obot idiot who has no understanding as to why he even breathes..Which incidentally is robbing air from those of us who possess common sense..Your comments are not welcome cause they are based on fiction and conjecture and not the law..Basically, post ur diatribe somewhere else u asshole!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Orly Taitz has singlehandedly kept this issue from going forward. She is a cliche character from the same town as Edward Scissorhands.

    ReplyDelete
  11. For Orly to be so adamant and full of vitriol against the FFL lawsuit says one thing to me. FFL is on the correct track.

    When you're getting a lot of flak....you're on target.

    For one lawyer to attack another lawyer like Orly has, reveals she is unethical and unprofessional.

    Orly, you are way out of line.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think Orly may be put off by this case being solely about the question of law (definition of a natural born citizen) instead of also being about the question of facts (location of birth, as documented in the birth certificate). The majority of Orly’s efforts have been focused on Obama’s birth certificate and where Obama was born, and less with regard to the fact of his foreign-citizen father.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Taitz responds:

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=26977

    ReplyDelete
  14. Just a thought here...earlier tonight while re-reading 2009 Talking Points Memo, I came across this..."State election officials under some state ballot laws might thus require candidate “statements” or “declarations” of candidacy attesting to and/or
    certifying certain facts as a condition to be on the ballot; in other states,
    representatives of the established political parties may certify names to the
    Secretary of State, or the designated elections official may place viable or
    “recognized” candidates on the presidential preference ballots. In such cases opposing political candidates or political parties may have “standing ” to legally challenge the placement of a name of an opponent on the ballot, or state law may specifically provide for a procedure for timely protests to be filed concerning the qualifications of candidates."....Am I wrong? or is this suggesting that Drummet would have "standing" to challenge obama from being placed on the ballot? And NBC eligibility would seem to be a good reason?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I’ve long suspected Orly Taitz. She blows these cases and everyone thinks she is some kind of a heroine for doing so. What better cover can there be for BHO…to have a lawyer in place to take all the evidence and bungle the cases. And her behavior towards a competitor attorney and the Obot’s endorsement of her arguments against him strengthens that logic.

    And here is a different twist. Could Orly Taitz be a part of a worldwide conspiracy brought to us by the most powerful forces on Earth – and actually be a different person? Watch at about the 22:12 mark. I find this guy’s work to be very interesting.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiFtPLd93f8

    ReplyDelete
  16. Orly Taitz needs money for her Senate campaign. Please donate.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I too have been very frustrated that Orly always goes for the throat; she doesn't read things before she jumps to conclusions. She always berates the Judges, which is no way to get them to work with her. If I'm the Judge and I have the Plaintiff calling me ugly names and saying I'm treasonous before I even reach a decision, I'm sure as heck not going to find in that persons favor or hear anything she has to say. You have to show respect for the court whether you have respect for it or not, it's the way the game is played. I even tried to email and post on her blog with this suggestion, that she be more respectful to the court and she not only never replies to emails, she deletes any blog posting that offers suggestions or criticism of herself, like she knows everything and does not want to hear any other suggestions. She can’t stand to hear anything negative about herself. I read Orly's response to this and while she might have her point, she is so afraid someone else might steal her limelight that she will risk everything to keep the light on herself. She only seems interested in getting on some meaningless radio program that nobody listens to in order to see or hear herself on useless unwatched Youtube video’s. Orly, you have tried valiantly to go after Obama, but you have failed to get any judge too listen to even one of these cases, in fact, you have pissed most of them off. It’s time to get this lying usurper out of this office he doesn’t belong in, if you can’t do it by yourself, then at least work with others who can. Strength comes in numbers and a team has a better chance of success than one person.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Frankly, I think it's time for Taitz to step asside and let others work at getting answers. She's been totally unsuccessful in everything she's been attached to concerning this issue. I personally find her obnoxious and abrasive and think that she is the last person anyone would want as the face of an issue.

    ReplyDelete
  19. A write in Presidential candidate does not need to be put on any ballot. http://writein2008.blogspo​t.com/

    ReplyDelete
  20. Orly is right-on!

    This is a snipe hunt too!! Been there done that!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. If Orly is not involved in the case then it must be bad... I have believed for a long time that Orly's efforts have not been about Obama or the law but rather they are about Orly... Also, may I ask, on her website she asks for money and posts when people send her checks, where does that money go exactly???

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Anonymous @1:35

    It means that a candidate has standing in STATE COURT to challenge another candidate to be on the ballot. The election for President is actually 51+ separate elections.

    Dummett has not filed in a single state. The filing period for the PRIMARY has not yet begun in most states. Dummett cannot stop a private organization such as the Democratic Party from nominating whomever its members wish. He has to wait until the ballot challenge period for the GENERAL election.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Despite what I'm reading here, I still support Orly. Although, I would like to see all the attorneys involved unify their efforts into one. Even though I don't believe for one minute any attorney, anywhere, at any time, is ever going to be heard on this issue. After 3 years, it should now start to dawn on everyone where we are headed. This is going to end in Washington, and, we're going to end up doing the ending. Pipedream or not, that's the way I see it.

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.