TX – Taitz v Sebelius – Reply

Orly has filed yet another ‘masterpiece’ outlining how she fails to correctly argue standing.

Upon receiving this ruling, Taitz filed another motion for reconsideration, asking to rule in her favor based on the Establishment clause, however the court ruled that since she did not bring the Establishment clause in the original complaint, it would not consider it under rule 60B.

“plaintiff cannot use her Rule 60(b) motion to raise legal arguments that were available to her at the time of filing. Therefore, the Court will not address plaintiff’s new claims.” id

And of course, her ‘arguments’ fail on so many levels:

Ms. Taitz claims that because President Obama has not proved that he is a natural born citizen, he thus cannot legitimately sign the bill into law.

Another lawsuit that is going to quickly fail…

10/05/2012 16 REPLY filed by Orly Taitz re: 14 Response/Objection, (Attachments: # 1 Declaration(s) certificate of service) (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 10/05/2012)