Readers may recall that the FOIA lawsuit Taitz v. Colvin, an attempt to force the Social Security Administration to release a non-existent record for the apparently equally non-existent Harrison J. Bounel, was decided in favor of the Social Security Administration. They looked, and didn’t find anything.
Cover-up, screams Taitz and blames a conflict of interest on the part of Judge Hollander, who was appointed to the federal bench by Barack Obama.
In an article [link to Taitz web site] including her motion to re-open and recuse, Taitz cites the rules on judicial recusal and, in my opinion, fails to find anything relevant.
Update:
Thanks to a commenter here, perhaps it got more interesting. This is from Taitz’ motion:
Further, revelation of a conflict of interest by a judge represents a new evidence, which satisfies Rule 60(b)(2).
But was it “new evidence”? Here is a screen shot from Orly Taitz’ web site:
And here’s another:
Taitz responds to comment 41, suggesting that she was well aware last January that Judge Hollander was an Obama appointee. Is Taitz trying to deceive the Court?
Read more:
Imagine if she used her tenacity for something productive.
I’m sure that it will be very easy for Judge Hollander to find 60 riles.
Oooooh, I’m on pins and needles!
Like getting Comrade Putin to come clean about the plane his proxies shot down?
IANAL but:
1. Doesn’t a motion for reconsideration have to deal with new facts or new law? How is Judge Hollander’s appointment by Pres. Obama news? Wasn’t it publicly reported? Or am I thinking of Rule 60 and not Rile 60?
2. In fact, didn’t Dr. Taitz discuss that Judge Hollander was appointed by Pres. Obama on her blog while the case was pending? Is she just plain out lying in this motion?
3. I seem to recall that Justice Scalia and Vice-President Cheney used to go hunting together. And that Justice Scalia declined to recuse himself in a case involving the Vice-President. I’m thinking that was about 2003.
I’m no lawyer either, but here’s what I’ve heard. A motion for reconsideration does not deal with new stuff, it is supposed to point out an error that the judge made in the opinion that, if corrected, would logically lead to a different decision.
The request for recusal is separate from the motion for reconsideration. It is not acceptable to wait until after the decision to request recusal on a basis that you knew at the start. This is probably why Taitz is trying to pretend she just found out Hollander was appointed by Obama.
And there’s an interesting thing about Supreme Court Justices — there are no rules for recusal. They recuse themselves when they feel like it. If they don’t, there’s nothing anyone can do about it. I bring this up every time someone complains about Justice Thomas, and cases involving parties who have made massive donations to his wife’s organization. It’s not illegal, because there is no recusal requirement for the Supreme Court.
She knew about it at least last December and January, because Hollander’s appointment by Obama was mentioned on her website then.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/this-is-very-good-news-judge-ellen-lipton-hollander-in-a-case-of-obama-using-a-stolen-ct-social-security-number-of-harry-bounel-rules-without-prejudice-and-gives-me-an-opportunity-to-file-a-second-am/
More shooting other hunters than hunting, as I recall …..
(PS: In my neck of the woods you lose your hunting / gun license for life for such an “accident”)
RC found comments on her blog as well:
“Anonymous
March 11th, 2014 @ 12:29 pm
Fed R. Civ. P. 1002, 1003, and 1004 amendments were issued by Court order of the U.S. Supreme Court in April, 2011 and ordered effective December, 2011.
Associate Justices Sotomayor and Kagen sat on the Supreme Court when those Fed. R. Civ. P. were amended by court order, submitted to Congress for codification and signed into law by President Obama. Chief Justice Roberts transmited the Court order to Congress.
YOU NOTIFIED CJ Roberts, with exhibits, Obama was ineligible in March, 2009 and CJ Roberts did nothing. OBJECT!
Furthermore, Judge Hollander was appointed by Obama. Object and demand she recuse or set a date for a hearing on the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II.
dr_taitz@yahoo.com
March 11th, 2014 @ 2:45 pm
so far Judge Hollander was fair, there is no reason to object.
We’ll see what she decides. Considering that in 2012 the SSA already found the SS-5 for Bounel, I can’t imagine her not deciding in my favor. What would be the basis for her to decide in favor of the feds?”
He posted that at Fogbow here:
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=9775&p=628027&hilit=hollander#p628027
link to Orly’s blog is in that post.
Ironically, this is the same judge who Orly praised for sua sponte advising Orly that she should file an amended complaint rather than raise new factual allegations in a motion (duh, counselor), and for sua sponte granting Orly leave to do so.
IMO, it’s silly to suggest that federal court judges must “disclose” that they were nominated for office by the President of the U.S. It’s a very public constitutional process and public fact. Be that as it may, there IS such disclosure on the official court websites:
From http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov re Ellen Lipton Hollander: “On April 21, 2010, President Obama nominated Judge Hollander to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Senate confirmed her nomination on December 18, 2010, and Judge Hollander took the oath of office on January 4, 2011.” http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/publications/JudgesBio/hollander.htm
From http://www.uscourts.gov re Hollander, Ellen Lipton: “Nominated by Barack Obama on April 21, 2010, to a seat vacated by Andre M. Davis. Confirmed by the Senate on December 18, 2010, and received commission on December 28, 2010.” http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/BiographicalDirectoryOfJudges.aspx
As pointed out in Doc’s update to the article, Orly is lying about what Orly actually knew. As shown here, Orly is also lying about what had been officially disclosed.
p.s. As a lawyer, it really bugs me every time Orly addresses a federal court judge with so much contempt. It is disgraceful. I just never get used to it.
—–
Hah!
Too bad we couldn’t send that little exchange to Judge Hollander to show that Orly is lying her ass off in her MTR.
Doc asks:
Yes, with every fiber of her being. That was a rhetorical question wasn’t it?
The fact that Judge Hollander was appointed by President Obama is not only not new. It’s also not evidence. I guess Orly didn’t take Judge Lamberth’s advice to look up that word. She’s a liar and a moron.
And why couldn’t this be done?
I was going for facetious.
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/courtinfo/directorybydept.asp?TableID=Clerk's Office – Executive Office
felicia_cannon@mdd.uscourts.gov
Unfortunately, I don’t think that Judge Hollander will care about Taitz’s lie because it will be immaterial to her ruling on the motion. It is well-established in case law that judges do not have an obligation to recuse themselves just because the President who appointed them has an interest in the outcome of a case. Taitz’s comparison to Judge Wingate recusing himself from the Mississippi Senate True the Vote lawsuit is inapt because, in that case, Judge Wingate said he has been a personal friend of Thad Cochran’s for 30 years. I doubt Judge Hollander is a longtime personal friend of the President’s. And even if she was, it wouldn’t matter because Barack Obama is not using a stolen Social Security number. Harry Bounel never existed. The 4425 number was assigned to a living person and Taitz is not entitled to the SS-5. All these things add up to a quick denial (hopefully) but I doubt Judge Hollander will get into the weeds with any of the specifics of Taitz’s latest pile o’ crap.
It has been explained to Orly multiple times that “newly discovered evidence” is that which was not available after due diligence. Even if it were grounds for recusal, which it is not, or was not known to Taitz previously, which it was, it could have been found easily by most anyone.
Orly is amazing in her ability to be completely incompetent and an unrepentant liar, all at the same time.
And Obama really has no interest in this case. He is not a defendant in the case, and even if the SSA had records of a man named Harrison Bounel it would mean nothing to the President.
Orly must have some crazy scripts running on her web site. I could barely type in the comment box, and attempts to print a page, both in Firefox and Chrome were unresponsive. Internet Explorer did print.
Perhaps she is trying to make it hard for people to capture incriminating screens like those in your post.
I suppose there are many screen capture tools out there. I use Microsoft Onenote with a convenient hot key to start a click drag region capture, saved as a PNG file. That’s how I made the screen captures for the article, but to print a page was difficult.
Is it really possible to spend three years at law school and learn nothing?
With unlimited funds from a rich spouse, living in a state where law schools need not be accredited, and people willing to take your bar exam for you for a fee, anything is possible.
I posted that to Orly anonymously because she wouldn’t let my post past moderation with my real-fake name, SvenMagnussen.
The rules are actually Fed Rules of Evidence and not Fed Rules of Civil Procedure. Orly cited those Fed Rules of Evidence in her filing, so I tried to explain to her the rules were amended in 2011.
In 2011, Obama appointees, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagen, were participating in the Supreme Court vote to order an amendment to the Fed. Rules of Evidence. If Obama is ineligible, then his appointees are in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
If Orly would think it through, she should file a motion alleging Obama is in violation of the Eligibility Clause and object to his appointees who are in violation of the Appointments Clause.If her objection is sustained, Judge Hollander and Justices Sotomayor and Kagen cannot participate in an adverse order, ruling, opinion or any other action against Orly because it would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution for these judicial officers to ignore allegations of Constitutional violations pursuant to the Ninth Amendment and Article VI.
Further, if Obama is ineligible, then AG Holder’s appointment is in violation of the Appointments Clause. And the AUSA who filed a MTD and the executive level officers at the SSA submitting affidavits adversial to Orly’s allegation and not investigating and reporting their findings about Obama’s eligibility is a violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.
Well, looks like we found the flaw with this approach.
Leaving aside the de facto officer doctrine, an allegation does not require recusal.
HA HA HA HA HA!!!
The magic reset button rears its non-existent head again.
Any way to unearth her law school and bar exam assignments? I just do not believe that her lack of critical thinking, inability to read or understand legal materials, and a use of English that even now is very shaky, that she did any of the work needed. It isn’t credible.
Seeing as how Orly is a BIG advocate of releasing private records and information, with or without the subject’s consent, I’m certain she will be releasing those files Any Day Now.
In the de facto officer doctrine, an objection to an executive level U.S. federal officer requires an investigation by the executive level U.S. federal officer or a grant of relief. If Judge Hollander cannot or will not investigate Orly’s allegation Obama is ineligible because he is not a U.S. Citizen and that he is fraudulently using of a SSN assigned to another person, then Judge Hollander must recuse.
If Judge Hollander hears an objection concerning her appointment by an ineligible President and she investigates, then she is required to report the results of her investigation. Orly can then accept the results or appeal Judge Hollander’s results to the Circuit Court of Appeals as an inadequate investigation.
Further, Orly could object to the AUSA filing a motion to dismiss when an allegation of violations of the Eligibilty Clause and Appointments Clause are made in a complaint read by the AUSA. Pursuant to Article VI, the AUSA must thoroughly investigate those allegations of violations of the U.S Constitution and make the result known to Orly before he moves to dismiss her case pursuant to the Fed. R. of Civ. P. or precedent set at common law. Again, Orly can accept the results of the AUSA investigation into Constitutional violations or appeal.
And for the trifecta, the acting SSA Commissioner is an executive level U.S. federal officer. She is required to thoroughly investigate Obama’s eligibility with respect to his complete file controlled by the SSA and report the results to Orly. Orly can accept the results or appeal.
Privacy is a statutory right. Objecting and seeking relief from an ineligible President is a Constitutional right. A statutory right, rule, regulation or executive order cannot trump a Constitutional right.
Maybe your scanner ran out of toner.
😉
The primary problem with your argument is that Obma is a U.S. citizen and he is not using a Social Security Number which was assigned to another person.
I hope that by now you have come to the realization that “Harrison J. Bounel” aka “Harry Bounel” never existed. The person who is named in the 1940 census was Harry Boymel, not Harry Bounel. Harry Boymel’s SSN was 080-18-6078, a number which Obama has never used. Obama’s SSN was issued while Harry Boymel was still alive. Boymel died in 1978.
However, you can rest assured that Obama will be out office in January, 2017. You only have to wait another 2 1/2 years.
These are earth-shattering allegations! Someone needs to get this to a Republican congressman right away. Based on how much the Republicans hate Obama, I’m sure that there will be many in Washington who will want to investigate this.
What happened to sven he was a lot more entertaining when he was writing his Barry and the Pirates novella.
Citation needed. After all this time, and all these losses, you still fail to comprehend that merely being a citizen/voter/taxpayer does not confer standing, pace Birfer fever dreams. “Seeking relief,” in this instance, is most certainly not a “Constitutional right.” You don’t get to confer rights on people just because you really, really want to.
Next time, try “Albert Moore.”
Or one of the thirty-odd (at least) sock puppets you’ve been known to use on this blog alone.
January 20, 2017. Barack hands the keys to Hillary. Save the date.
To Sven and anyone like him:
You are setting us an example of how we should treat the next Republican president.
Hope you’re OK with that. Take that one short sentence to heart, my friend.
Orly’s case was an FOIA case where she wanted the SSA to produce the SS-5 application for somebody she claimed was named Harry Bounel and born in 1890. This is not a ‘is Obama eligible’ case. This isn’t even a “did Obama steal a SSN” case. The only question is, did the SSA conduct a reasonable search for the alleged Harry Bounel. That’s it. The judge ruled, according to the law, they did. End of case.
Making unfounded allegations in an unrelated case does not require to court to do anything.
I see Sven the racist troll is back. I saw his post which makes numerous assertions of what the law is without a single reference to a law.
Nevertheless, Sven is correct about one thing. Folks who doubt that Pres. Obama is eligible to be President have a constitutional right to petition for a redress of that grievance. The Constitution tells us that the way to remove a President is by impeachment and conviction. Sven should petition his Congressman to file a motion to impeach the President. Then the House can vote and, if they vote out articles of impeachment, the Senate can then hold a trial. If the Senate convicts, then the President is out. Sven, it is that simple.
Judge Hollander has no obligation to investigate Dr. Taitz’s drivel because in this country judges do not generally conduct investigations. Sven should rent “Z” from Netflix if he has dreams of a judge conducting an investigation.
To be clear: the constitutional right of a citizen to petition the government for redress of grievances DOES NOT EQUATE to the wholly imagined and unsupported claim to a “right” to seek “relief” from an “ineligible” (assuming facts most certainly NOT in evidence) President by a private citizen in the courts; Sven pulled that out of his rear. So Sven is only “correct about one thing” for a very tenuous and generous definition of “correct.”
The reason relief cannot be had in the courts is because the Constitution provides the express methodology for dealing with an allegation that the President is ineligible (Congress certifies his election) and the express methodology for getting rid of a President who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. (Impeachment and conviction.) I do not understand why Birthers hate the Constitution so.
Except that Pres. Obama is Black. And Sven is a racist troll who hates our Constitution. Undoubtedly because Sven is trapped in Moldova where he gets internet access a few hours a day when the hamsters run real fast.
Perhaps the lawyers here can explain. I’ve looked at the summonses (is that right?) Dr. Taitz obtained. Why is there a summons directed to the U.S. Attorney and to the Attorney General telling them that they have been sued. I did not think they were defendants.
And why did the Court issue these documents when they were clearly not filled in.
Last, I’m guessing that all of the defendants have 60 days from service of the lawsuit (Lord knows if Dr. Taitz can accomplish that task) to answer. Doesn’t that mean that nothing will happen — if ever — until after late September at the earliest? By which time we will be totally overrun by children. It will be like living with the Duggars.
You just make up sh*t as you go, right?
Ironically, Americans who wrap themselves in the Constitution are the ones who know it least.
Now you’re getting delusional. *lol*
Since the SSA is not tasked with validating a President’s eligibility and since a valid SSN is not required by the Constitution to be President, that argument is moot.
You might just as well claim the Department of Agriculture is required to investigate the President for treason simply because it is a federal agency.
Assuming you a talking about her latest immigration case, all of the defendants are being sued in their official capacity (including, oddly, President Obama). When suing a federal defendant in their official capacity, service is made on a US attorney, at least. There may be more places and I am not sure how the AG fits in.
There are instructions on how to properly serve papers to a US Attorney’s office, civil process desk, which means she will get it wrong, as she has done before.
They are obviously in on it because the Secretary of Agriculture is an Obama appointee.
An appointee and any executive level U.S. federal officer is tasked with supporting the U.S. Constitution (Article VI). An allegation the President of the United States is in violation of the Eligibility Clause requires an investigation on the part of the executive level U.S. federal officer or an exemption from the laws, rules, regulations, executive orders and appointments signed into law or action by the ineligible president.
The SSA has President Obama’s has a complete set of files concerning President Obama’s application, corrections, amendments, or changes at their disposal to determine if President Obama is in violation of the Eligibility Clause. Executive level officers have taken an oath to support the Constitution. The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, is a part of the U.S. Code. The U.S. Code cannot be used to trump an oath to support the U.S Constitution and give the usurper a pass as he violates the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Pursuant to the de facto officer doctrine, any executive level U.S. federal officer must investigate an allegation of ineligibility on the part of the President and report their findings. If not, the allegation is assumed to have merit and the person making the allegation must be exempted from the laws, rules, regulations, executive orders and appointments of the ineligible President.
If Orly would allege Obama is ineligible and demand the SSA Commissioner, the Assistant U.S. Atty and Judge Holllander investigate the allegation, then she could obtain an exemption from adverse action from those U.S. federal officers or demand an hearing to determine Obama’s eligibility. Prior to the hearing, Orly could request discovery of Obama’s original SSN application.
You can elect a usurper to be President, but you can’t force everyone to comply with his laws, rules, regulations and appointments because he has violated the U.s. Constitution by assuming the office while in violation of the Eligibility Clause. You and Dr. Conspiracy are free to submit to the usurper all day and every day until the United States is destroyed.
This is the batsh*t craziest illogical piece of nonsense I ever read. Supporting the Constitution doesn’t suddenly turn you into a freelance J. Edgar Hoover above the law.
As has been pointed out to you a zillion times before, Congress had twice the opportunity to investigate Obama’s legitimacy. That’s the only branch of your Government which has the power and the means to act.
Judge Hollander and SSA Commissioner Colvin are appointees of President Obama. The AUSA who filed a MtD to the detriment of Orly’s complaint is a career professional U.S federal officer. All of these executive level U.S federal officers have taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution.
When a person utilizes their First Amendment right to have their grievance address in the U.S. District Court and they make an allegation the President is in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Eligibility Clause, then the U.S. federal officers must investigate the alleged violation of the U.S. Constitution before they take an adversarial position against the U.S. Citizen. If Orly thinks the investigation is inadequate, then she could demand a hearing to determine Obama’s eligibility before any action is taken on her FOIA case.
Read the recent Noel Canning v. NLRB Supreme Court opinion. NLRB appointees were found to be in violation of the Appointments Clause. SCOTUS, in a 9-0 vote, ruled all of the actions, regulations, determinations and opinions while the NRLB appointees were in violation of the Appointments Clause were voided because of their trespass on the U.S. Constitution. Approximately 600 decisions have been voided.
If Orly got the SSA Commissioner to admit President Obama applied for his SSN when he was an alien living in the U.S.in 1977, then she could have everything Obama has done voided due to violations of the U.S. Constitution. And the kicker is that SSA Commissioner Colvin and Judge Hollander would suddenly become unemployed.
If you really believed that, you’d file that suit yourself, being a big-shot attorney and all. But you don’t believe it. No Birfer actually believes in their Birfering. You won’t pursue the matter because you know it would damage your reputation the way it’s damaged Orly’s, so you’re content to spout nonsense from the sidelines and try to muddy the waters in a long-settled matter. Like all Birfers, you’re a joke. This is where we gather to point and laugh.
Thanks for the laugh! I needed that today.
By the way, if everything that Obama has done were to be voided, it means that the Bush tax cuts expired in 2010. Get ready to file your amended returns!
Except for one minor detail Sven, the President already had a US Passport showing he was/is an American Citizen, so there’s no way anyone could claim he wasn’t an American citizen when he applied. Sorry, another dead end.
This issue was adjudicated three years ago by a Ronald Reagan appointed Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia when the defendant was Social Security Administration Commissioner appointed by the George W. Bush administration Michael Astrue.
The judge ruled in “Taitz v. Astrue: “Ever persistent, plaintiff has once again come before this Court in an effort to uncover ‘the biggest cover up in the history of this nation.’ She believes that the President is using a ‘fraudulently obtained’ social security number and that the Social Security Administration—among other agencies—is involved in a scheme to ‘cover up social security fraud, IRS fraud, elections fraud and possibly treason’ committed by the President. As her numerous filings with the Court demonstrate, plaintiff will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is not her lucky day.”-Chief U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, August 30, 2011
Amazing the things one can come up with when not bound by what the law actually says.
Not only has Orly Taitz’s reputation been damaged (if she ever had one!), birther-related lawyering has cost her about $30,000 in sanctions and court costs.
Not according to the Supreme Court. In Minn. Bd. Commun. for Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984) the Court held “[n]othing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.”
Brilliant.
How about it, Sven? I know the requirements for being admitted to the bar in Missouri must have been pretty low in 1964, but have you read no law in the subsequent fifty years? Or has your racism blinded you to these facts?
In all seriousness, if you are showing any other signs of senility, please let your loved ones know immediately and seek medical attention.
Let’s review.
I am a retired officer of the United States Air Force. As such, I can be recalled at any time. And I’ve sworn to defend, protect and preserve the Constitution. I’ve actually done my bit, getting shot at and stuff like that. And if Pres. Obama said, “Reilly, we need you back,” even though I didn’t vote for the guy, I would respond “Yes, sir,” and report for duty. Really, there is no other answer an American can give.
If someone came to me and said that the Pres. is ineligible (and I served under Pres. Clinton, who never got a majority of the votes, and the second pres. Bush, whose majority was about 5-4), I would pull out my trusty Constitution and check to see who handles that issue. After all, if someone comes to me and says that we need to capture that hill over yonder, I can provide air support (and have) but Air Force officers do not generally take hills. And lo and behold, the Constitution tells me whose job it is to check out the President. Congress. So I check the news. You can Google it. And you will find out that while there was the odd objection or two to Pres. Bush, not a single congress person objected to Pres. Obama. Not one. 535 to zip. So I’d ask the guy who told me the president was ineligible, why should I do anything when the folks I paid to check this out did so and unanimously agreed that the guy was eligible.
Why is that so difficult for Sven to follow? Why does Sven hate our Constitution so that he insists that a determined band of wackos can tie up the government endlessly in re-visiting an issue that the 535 people we paid to do have already handled?
And why does Sven persist in avoiding this rather simple answer to his question?
Other than, of course, Sven is a racist troll.
But we knew that already.
So Sven, when I was a sworn federal officer (wore a uniform and all), it was not my job to investigate whether Pres. Bush was really elected or whether I should follow Pres. Clinton’s orders even though he never got a majority of the votes. And Sven, unlike you, you know, living under a rock in your Mother’s basement, the decisions that these men made meant that I got shot at during the administrations of Pres. G. H. W. Bush, Pres. Clinton, and Pres. G. W. Bush. Shot at. Guns. RPGs. Air-to-air missiles. Ground-to-air. Shot at. Protecting, defending and preserving the Constitution you keep trashing. And but for my untimely retirement (the canopy broke, but the citation says enemy fire), I’d still be flying and potentially in harm’s way.
But you would still be a racist troll.
Hear hear! Bravo! Respect!
This confirms how I’ve understood your Constitution, though I’ve always wondered what the sense of such a “right to petition” is if there is nothing enforceable related to it. Or does it simply mean that nobody shall be prosecuted simply for petitioning the government? That’s already in the “free speech” clause.
Is it simply a declarative statement, as in “the government should listen to the people and not just govern as it sees fit”?
(The German Constitution has a few declarative articles as well, including the right to resistance against anyone attempting to overthrow the free democratic order, something inserted with fresh memories of the Nazi regime but of course practically unenforceable when the government has already decided to ignore the Constitution.)
Uhm, no. First, the appointments being invalid was not a result of the *appointees* “trespassing” on the Constitution. The unconstitutional action was the President appointing them.
Second, the de facto officer doctrine does not apply here because the appointment itself was unconstitutional. In case of an ineligible President, he is the President by the de facto officer doctrine, therefore all his actions that are not by themselves unconstitutional (like the said recess appointments) remain valid even if the President is found to have been ineligible.
It’s a common mistake to misinterpret the principle of causality (which also applies to all legal issues).
If you drive drunk and somebody ignores a red light at a crossing and slams into your car, your responsibility for the accident is zero since it would also have happened if you had been sober (causality does not mean “since you were drunk you shouldn’t have driven, then the accident would not have happened”) but it would not have happened if the other driver had respected the red light.
Likewise, an appointment by an ineligible President remains valid because it would also have been valid if the President had been eligible.
OTOH an appointment by an ineligible President made in violation of the Constitution is invalid because it would also have been invalid had the President been eligible.
The thread topic about a lawsuit filed by a citizen who alleged the SSA did not adequately respond to an FOIA request. The District Court, the SSA and the DoJ supported the U.S. Constitution when they heard and responded to the citizen’s exercise of their First Amendment right to file a grievance against the SSA in the District Court.
The SSA submitted a affidavit on the results of their search after the FOIA request and the adequacy of the search.
The DoJ filed a MtD with the SSA’s affidavit.
The Court dismissed the case.
Now, the citizen has filed a motion alleging the Judge should have recused because the President is ineligible and the Judge was appointed by the ineligible President.Precedent has been set by Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69 (“Typically, the Court has found a judge’s actions to be valid de facto when there is a “merely technical” defect of statutory authority, McDowell v. United States, 159 U. S. 596, 601-602, but not when, as here, there has been a violation of a statutory provision that embodies weighty congressional policy concerning the proper organization of the federal courts, see, e. g., American Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W R. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 387″).
The SSA Commissioner’s appointment is a violation of the Appointments Clause. Judge Hollander’s appointment is a violation of the Appointments Clause. The career U.S. federal officer of the DoJ is in violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution after read the allegation Obama was ineligible and he chose to ignore it and not investigate the allegation before moving the court to dismiss the citizen’s case.
If the citizen had merely informed the career U.S. federal officer the President was ineligible and the AUSA wasn’t assigned to the citizen’s case, then the career U.S. federal officer would not have been obligated to respond or investigate. But, since the career U.S. federal officer was gathering information which may have led to a movement of dismissal of the case, then the career U.S. federal officer was required to investigate the allegation the President was in violation of the Eligibility Clause.
Appointees of the President are required to investigate an alleged violation of the Eligibility Clause or Appointments Clause even if the allegation is inferred and not specific. See American Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W R. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 387.
If Orly appealed her FOIA case based on violations of the Constitution by the District Court and the SSA and the DoJ, then she’d win. Unfortunately, Orly is singularly focused on having Obama removed from office which is a violation of the Constitutional rights of those who love tyranny.
She’d win — what? Not her case certainly. An ice cream cone, perhaps?
Seriously, you’re delusional. You don’t seem to even grasp that of things worked according to your twisted notions. the country — any country, really — would grind to a halt.
Bravo! Respect.
Please cite where in the opinion of the court (an opinion on the interpretation of the recess appointment clause) does it say that everything done by the NLRB is null and void.
And if she had actually had any paying customers for her “lawyering” the Cal “B.A.R.” might have a reason to revoke her license.
Ah. Sven is back. Sven is a racist troll.
Sven absolutely refuses to respond to my point that the folks we paid to investigate Pres. Obama unanimously agreed he was eligible. Twice. Or that the only way to remove him from office is impeachment and conviction.
Sven refuses to discuss these points. This is not new with Sven.
As much as I don’t like to defend Sven, SCOTUS affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the NLRB lacked a quorum and therefore its decision (appealed in Noel Canning v. NLRB) wasn’t valid.
I think one can infer that this extends to all decisions of the unlawfully filled board, though of course formally they would all have to be challegend to become null and void.
However I explained to Sven why this was not comparable to having the hypothecial ineligible President because the application of the de facto officer doctrine is not the same.
No, because of the de facto officer doctrine. Obama *is* the President, even if he were ineligible. How often do you need to be told?
Given that all courts have ruled that birthers’ arguments are crap, their evidence for an actual violation of the Constitution non-existant and in some cases have explicitly stated Obama is eligible, there was no further investigation needed.
No federal officer has the duty to carry out an investigation *to the petitioner’s satisfaction*, but only w.r.t. due diligence.
Crazy conspiracy claims are not enough to warrant even to begin an investigation, let alone conduct it in a way birthers demand.
In Nguyen v. United States 539 U.S. 69 (2003), SCOTUS held the Appeals Court panel made up of two Article III judges and one Article IV judge was unconstitutional. Even though petitioner did not raise the constitutional question until after the Appeals Court upheld the District Court’s decision, SCOTUS remanded the case back to the Appeals Court for rehearing with Article III judges.
Judge Hollander’s appointment is a violation of the Appointments Clause because she was appointed by a President in violation of the Eligibility Clause. Since Judge Hollander lacks authority to pass judgement, all of her decisions are void. But first, Orly must appeal Judge Hollanders decision with the allegation Obama is ineligible and Judge Hollander’s appointment is in violation of the Constitution.
Always worth noting:
1. All of Sven’s allegations about Judge Hollander, the SSA commissioner, and the AUSA rely wholly upon the absurd, unproved, unprovable and utterly discredited notion that the President is ineligible for his office, a notion which has been officially rejected by every member of congress, dozens of judges, and the Chief Justice of the United States, and for which no credible evidence has ever been presented. This is the central problem for all Birfers, but particularly for Sven.
2. Sven does not actually believe any of the absurd statements he makes about the President’s eligibility, as evidenced by the fact that he has limited his actions regarding the alleged ineligibilty to whining on the internet, and to one farcical amicus brief in the McInnish case. If Sven, or any patriot, actually believed the President was ineligible, he’d stop whining and do something about it.
The de facto officer doctrine is inapplicable to Constitutional questions. There is not a doctrine, rule, order, opinion or statute that can make a violation of the Constitution valid. Once an act is ruled unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional until the Constitution is amended and the amendment specifically describes the act as Constitutional.
If Orly appeals her FOIA case to the Circuit court and alleges Judge Hollander lacked authority to rule due to a violation of the Appointments Clause after appointment by an ineligible President, then the Circuit court will remand the case back to the District court for a hearing on violations of the Constitution. To prove Obama is ineligible, Orly can obtain Obama’s complete SSA file. Obama cannot use the Privacy Act to quash evidence to prove a Constitutional violation. If necessary, the evidence can be examined in camera and sealed after trial.
Come now, Bonsall; it’s common knowledge that all three branches of the federal government, and a large number of state judges and politicians have been bribed or threatened into obedience by Obama. What can a poor fellow like Sven do but whine? After all, unlike those brave patriots who put their lives on the line at Operation American Spring, Sven has a Social Security check to collect.
You are really all about begging the question, putting the cart before the horse, and assuming facts most definitely NOT in evidence, aren’t you? Is this the sort of “legal advice” you give your slip-and-fall clients?
I defy you to file a brief in this case with Judge Hollander, using the “reasoning” you’ve outlined in this blog; if it’s only half as funny as your brief in the McInnish case, it will provide no end of amusement.
Please make your arguments even louder and more incessant. An election is coming up. It is up to you to help Democrats win.
Sven, the racist troll is back yet again.
And continues to refuse to address the fact that Pres. Obama’s eligibility has already been determined by the folks we pay to do just that. There is simply no requirement in the law or Constitution that other government officials review the President’s eligibility yet again because some immigrant dentist says, without any evidence whatsoever, that the Pres. is ineligible.
And I’m shocked to learn Sven is collecting social security, knowing full well, as he does, that everything Pres. Obama has done is void by means of the magic reset button. That means, Sven, that Pres. Obama’s approval of laws which led to your current social security check is null and void. Checkmate.
Well, I don’t know for sure about that; it’s just that Sven’s arguments seemed so well-worn, I assumed he had long since retired.
You have zero evidence to back up that assertion. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Obama is not eligible to be President. Your fantasies about him renouncing his citizenship when he was seven years old, his refugee status, etc. do not count as evidence.
—
Didn’t you forget to add something; If Orly appeals her FOIA case to the Circuit court and alleges Judge Hollander lacked authority to rule . . . then the Circuit court will remand the case back to some non-Obama-appointed-District Judge–because Orly alleged that there was once a guy named Harrison Bounel who was scrubbed from the Numident system to throw America off the trail that Hawaii forged a birth certificate, which can only be proven by an in camera review of Obama’s application for a SS# which he never actually applied for because he wasn’t a US citizen, which is why he stole Bounel’s SS# in the first place. The 1st Amendment requires this, because Orly petitioned for it (well, not exactly). THEN and only then, can the non-Obama-appointed judge determine whether Judge Hollander is a properly appointed Art III Judge and thus let stand Judge Hollander’s decision as to the reasonable adequacy of the search for a Harrison Bounel SS# file under the FOIA statute, OR rule that Obama is not President and therefore there must be a new ruling as to whether to grant Orly’s motion for a manual search of all wet-ink applications to see if there is one for someone named Bounel. See, e.g., Nguyen v. United States. Hmm. Sounds like a slam dunk.
Warning: This is most certainly not legal advice.
p.s. Of course, there is still the issue of Colvin’s alleged treason and conflict of interest which allegedly underlies the SSA’s decision not to search all wet ink applications to see if there is one for a Harrison Bounel. Maybe Orly should petition the non-Obama-appointed Judge to enjoin the Senate confirmation hearings for Colvin (and everyone else) until we can get to the bottom of this…. See U.S. Constitution. Book em Danno.
Still, not legal advice.
So where is the proof that they didn’t do this and determined that the President isn’t using someone else’s SSN and is eligible? By stating that they have no records for Bounel, they have confirmed that they investigated Orly’s primary claim and determined it is false.
They didn’t find what Sven wanted them to find. Therefore, treason.
It’s like talking to a six-year-old.
But, but, but, if they are appointees of the President, and the President is ineligible, and the appointments are therefore unconstitutional, then the appointees are not really appointees, and are not required to investigate anything at all.
Amirite?
I want you around when we need to short-circuit the androids.
Happy to be of service. Especially since everything I say (or type) is a lie.
I actually read this case while sitting, as usual, waiting.
IANAL, and Sven is a racist troll, but the case says no such thing. It certainly does not stand for the concept that every time a racist troll raises the same failed and factless contention the entire government must come to a complete halt so that the allegation can be investigated again. And again. And again. Repeat 200+ times. And again.
NORMAN, COORDINATE
That case says nothing anywhere close to what you claim. Care to elaborate?
The question of Judge Hollander’s authority to rule is not before the Court, so the Court of Appeals won’t be considering it. If Orly had a problem with the Judge, she should have raised it at the start of the FOIA case. At this point, the argument is waived. Neither is the question of President Obama’s eligibility. So again, any question of his eligibility will not be considered by the Court. All that the Court of Appeals will consider is whether SSA did a proper search to satisfy her requests. And no, orly doesn’t get the President’s SSA files. The fact that she clings to her nutbaggery claims of SS fraud doesn’t magically erase the exceptions in FOIA that protect personal privacy….which are still irrelevant, because the issue of the President’s records isn’t even a question before the court.