jump to navigation

Orly Debunked – Claim 15 Lack of Jurisdiction – Keyes/Barnett November 11, 2009

Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Just Plain Weird, Keyes v Obama, Orly Taitz.
trackback

Claim 15: Your honor did not state that the undersigned was wrong in her assessment, but rather stated in presence of 50 observers, that if the undersigned does not serve Mr. Obama the way the government wants, the US attorney will appeal and the case will be sitting in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for a year, that if the undersigned counsel agrees to serve Mr. Obama the way the government wants, Your Honor promises that the case will be heard on the merits and will not be dismissed on technicality.

In fact, the Court strongly hinted that Orly was wrong and that he had already ruled against her once and was about to do the same. Furthermore, subject matter jurisdiction is not a technicality but rather renders any judgment void. In addition, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived.

Orly still does not seem to understand the difference between personal jurisdiction: was the defendant properly served and subject matter jurisdiction.

Comments

1. Mike - November 12, 2009

That’s the tip of the ice berg in Orly’s “not” understanding of the law, court procedures and a whole host of other issues…

I think any ramblings from Orly are more to beef up the Birthers rather than to uphold the understanding of the law. She does have that hefty fine to pay and she hasn’t been in the dental office enough performing unnecessary root canals to pay for it so she needs her flying monkeys to fork over the last of their unemployment benefits…

If Orly told the truth to her minions that she didn’t have subject matter jurisdiction, she would be out of the lime light last month…

2. RetiredLawyer - November 12, 2009

Orley just does not understand that if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any default she mighta, shoulda, woulda gotten would have been void.

The parties through action, default, or even agreement can not give the District Court subject matter jurisdiction when the District Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.

Assume Carter has a complete change of heart on the narrow question of whether he should have given Orley a default or default judgment against Obama based on the alleged failure to respond timely, but Carter holds to his conclusion that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. What is the result? He still must dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because without subject matter jurisdiction any action of the District Court is void, regardless of what the defendants do or not do with regard to the case.

Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause - November 12, 2009

Yes, the default would have been void. In fact, in order to find for default, the Judge could have looked at jurisdiction and dismissed default. Of course, there were much better reasons for rejecting default, namely lack of personal jurisdiction due to a failure to properly serve.
Now Orly would perhaps have gotten discovery and she believes that this would have settled the issue but it’s too late for that now.

For instance Pamela WILLIAMS, v. LIFE SAVINGS AND LOAN, 802 F.2d 1200, (10th Circuit Court of Appeals) 1986

Relief from a void judgment is mandatory. V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., supra at 224. Thus, when entry of a default judgment is sought against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, the district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction both over the subject matter and the parties. In reviewing its personal jurisdiction, the court does not assert a personal defense of the parties; rather, the court exercises its responsibility to determine that it has the power to enter the default judgment.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry