OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz


If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.





The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
orly.taitz@gmail.com.
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.
 -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.
 -- Mahatma Gandhi



Baby killed, 7 hurt in Jerusalem terror attack; terrorist dies of gunshot wounds

Posted on | October 22, 2014 | No Comments

Baby killed, 7 hurt in Jerusalem terror attack; terrorist dies of gunshot wounds

Haaretz  - ‎22 minutes ago‎
A three-month-old baby was killed and seven other people were wounded on Wednesday evening when a Palestinian drove his car into a light rail train station near Ammunition Hill in Jerusalem and ran over over passersby disembarking from the train.

AWESOME! Canadian Parliament’s Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers Takes Out Gunman

Posted on | October 22, 2014 | No Comments

AWESOME! Canadian Parliament’s Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers Takes Out Gunman

After Muslim jihadist ran over 2 Canadian soldiers killing one, another incident: a soldier and a security guard are shot at the Canadian parliament, shooter entered the Parliament, multiple shots fired, shooter at large

Posted on | October 22, 2014 | 5 Comments

Police: Soldier shot near Canadian Parliament

USA TODAY  - ‎24 minutes ago‎
A gunman shot a soldier and sprinted toward Canada’s Parliament building, sending bystanders and members of parliament scrambling for safety Wednesday, according to Ottawa police.

Assault on first amendment rights of freedom of religion: California Churches Forced to Cover Abortion For Employees

Posted on | October 22, 2014 | 1 Comment

California Churches Forced to Cover Abortion For Employees

Since popularity gage co, Alexa.com, was discredited by Breitbart and WND, as a regime lackey, Taitz is using now CheckPageRank.com and indeed it shows 96831 external links for www.orlytaitzesq.com. I shows that Public finds Attorney Orly Taitz to be a credible source of information

Posted on | October 22, 2014 | No Comments

As Taitz suspected all along, other conservative web publications have shown that a company, which used to be a gage of net popularity, Alexa.com, is artificially depressing the ranking of all conservative web sites, will promoting all the regime sponsored garbage web sites, which do not report the truth and defame dissidents. Taitz found a different popularity gage site www.CheckPageRank.net, and it shows that there are95,831 external links to WWWOrlyTaitzESQ.com, an official site of OrlyTaitz and her foundation Defend Our Freedoms foundation. This shows that public finds her credible and wants to get information from her in spite of all the attacks, slander and defamation of her character by the regime and operatives of the regime

OrlyTaitzESQ.com

External Backlinks Referring Domains Backlinks EDU Backlinks GOV PR Quality
95831 1213 3 0 Very Strong

 

Report: Autopsy Suggests Michael Brown Reached for Ferguson Officer’s Gun NBCNews.com – ‎2 minutes ago‎ The official autopsy on Michael Brown, leaked to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, suggests that he was shot in the hand at close range and may have reached for the police officer’s gun, outside experts told the newspaper. Official Michael Brown Autopsy Shows He Was Shot in the Hand at Close RangeNew York Magazine The Evidence of a StruggleThe Atlantic

Posted on | October 22, 2014 | 2 Comments

Report: Autopsy Suggests Michael Brown Reached for Ferguson Officer’s Gun

NBCNews.com  - ‎2 minutes ago‎
The official autopsy on Michael Brown, leaked to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, suggests that he was shot in the hand at close range and may have reached for the police officer’s gun, outside experts told the newspaper.

MD DEMOCRATS Hold Rally to Bash Conservative Republican – Only 2 People Show Up

Posted on | October 21, 2014 | No Comments

MD DEMOCRATS Hold Rally to Bash Conservative Republican – Only 2 People Show Up

Ebola Chicago: University of Chicago Medical Center Isolates 2 Patients With Ebola Symtoms

Posted on | October 21, 2014 | 8 Comments

Ebola Chicago: University of Chicago Medical Center Isolates 2 Patients With Ebola Symtoms

#Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson Says He “Almost Lost Consciousness” When Brown Smashed Him in Face

Posted on | October 21, 2014 | No Comments

#Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson Says He “Almost Lost Consciousness” When Brown Smashed Him in Face

please, sign this petition

Posted on | October 21, 2014 | 5 Comments

Dear Dr. Taitz,

This White House petition needs 52,000 more signatures within next 10 days.  I believe it fits with your efforts to limit entry of disease to the USA.

Jim Casey (Arlington, VA)

 

we petition the obama administration to:

Have the FAA ban all incoming and outgoing flights to ebola-stricken countries until the ebola outbreak is contained

The Ebola virus has reached unprecedented epidemic proportions in West Africa, and has been joined by another unrelated concurrent outbreak in the Congo. Experts had stated it was ‘highly unlikely’ that ebola would show up on American soil. But now it has, in the City of Dallas, Texas, brought here by an individual who entered our country from the West African nation of Liberia, where ebola is rampant. The citizens of the US are scared. We do not want any more ebola-infected individuals bringing the epidemic to our shores. The longer we allow people to enter our country from ebola-stricken areas, the higher the chance another person infected with ebola will arrive here, putting ALL of our citizens at risk. Please tell the FAA to ban ALL incoming flights from any/all ebola-stricken regions.

Created: Oct 01, 2014
Issues: Health Care, Homeland Security and Disaster Relief, Transportation and Infrastructure
Learn about Petition Thresholds

Signatures needed by October 31, 2014 to reach goal of 100,000

52,781

Total signatures on this petition

47,219

From a contributor Dawn: a case of a possible Ebola patient from Liberia

Posted on | October 21, 2014 | 1 Comment

Dawn
25 approved
Dawn

The weave of government with corporations such as Google, Facebook, GE, Monsanto and all the others will doom this nation. Big money rules over the people. Foreign nations are probably bribing officials with their millions. Corruption is so rampant in both parties..it is hard to see a way out. Add all the illegals and the doles explode. The elite are setting up the American people.

Off topic ..

A case of ebola may be in N.J. from a African who flew in from Brussels.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/passenger-with-possible-ebola-exposure-who-arrived-at-newark-being-evaluated-at-hospital-1.1114189

Even the Dems admit that our whole system of government is nothing but a sham. This is frightening and dangerous for every law abiding American

Posted on | October 21, 2014 | 9 Comments

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html?p1

Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.

Sean Hannity now covers the issue of travel ban from Ebola region. Please, forward to him these pleadings, ask to announce on his show that the hearing in October 29, 10 am Brownsville TX US District court, Judge Andrew Hanen, 600 E Harrison Ave

Posted on | October 21, 2014 | 10 Comments

 

Taitz v Johnson Reply and Exhibits 10.16.2014

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ

29839 SANTA MARGARITA, STE 100

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688

PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7687

 

US DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

 

TAITZ,                      )                              Case # 14-cv-00119

 V                                )       HONORABLE ANDREW S. HANEN PRESIDING

JOHNSON, ET AL   )

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

 

 

Table of Contents

Table of Authorities ……………………………….…………….………..…….piii

  1. Statement of Facts ………………………………………………………..….p1
  2. 12b(1) motion to dismiss is meritless , plaintiff satisfied 12b(1) requirement …………………………………………………………….…………………..p4
  3. This court has vast powers to deny admission of aliens…………………….…p6
  4. APA states that a court can “hold unlawful and set aside agency actions, findings and conclusions” that meet one or more of six standards. 5 USC § 706(2)………………………………………………………………………….p6
  5. Plaintiff has proven her article 3 standing and causation………………………………………………………………..……..p7

Standing includes not only an injury that occurred, but also imminent harm of injury. With Ebola epidemic the plaintiff has stronger standing as she is subjected to even greater  imminent harm…………………..………………….……………p7

  1. Federal employees do not have absolute immunity from common law torts, they can be sued under 28 USC 2679…………………………………………………………………………p9
  2.  Risk of exposure to new exotic diseases exceeds regular risk to healthcare provider……………,………………………………………………………………………………………………………………p9
  3. The fact that an injury is widely shared, is not  barrier to Article III standing……………..p9
  4. Plaintiff has standing as a taxpayer, defense  made an error in claiming that taxpayer standing is limited only to Establishment Clause claims ……..………………………….………….p11
  5. There is no jurisdictional bar to the relief requested………………………………………..p11
  6. Defendants do not have a discretion to violate existing us laws and endanger citizens through their actions…………………………………………………………………………………p11
  7. Argument that plaintiff is outside the statutory zone of interest is without merit, plaintiff is within a statutory zone of interest………………………………….………………………p12
  8. APA allows this action and waives sovereign immunity…………………………….…….p13
  9. Per Darby v Cisneros, plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies, as there are no mandated statutes or regulations for a relief requested by the plaintiff…………………………………………………………………………………….p15
  10. Plaintiff satisfied 12b(6) requirement………………………………………………………p16
  11. Defense did not deny and conceded that they committed fraud on the court when they claimed that illegal aliens do not get health care through government programs………..…p18
  12. Emergency stay should be granted……………………………………………….………..p19
  13. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………p20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Adam Cox, Citizenship, Standing and Immigration Law http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview Volume 92, Issue 2, 2-31-2004 …..p17

Ana International Inc. v. Way, 393 F.3d886, 890 (9th Cir. 2004)……………………………..p4

Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487, 499 (6th Cir. 2006)……………………………………p12,16

Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 891 n.16 (1988)………………………………………p4

Califano, 430 U.S. at 105………………………………………………………………………p4

Central S.D. Cooperative Grazing District v.Secretary, 266 F.3d 889, 894 (8th Cir. 2001)….p15

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401U.S. 402, 414 (1971)…………………p6

Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449-50 (1989)……………………………….p10

Chrysler Corp. v. Brown,441 U.S. 281, 317 (1979)…………………………………………..p15

Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993)………………………………………………………p16

Dixie Fuel Co. v. Comm’r of Social Security, 171 F.3d……………………………………….p5

Duran Gonzales v. DHS, No. C06-1411P, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82502, *8-9 (W.D. WA. Nov. 13, 2006)………………………………………………………………………………………p16

Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659 (1892)………………………………………………p6

FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11,23 (1998)…………………………………………………………..p9

Fed’n for Am. Immigration Reform, Inc., 93 F.3d at 900………………………………….…..p17

FirstGirl,  Inc.  v.Reg’ManpowerAdmin,  499  F.2d  122,  124  (7th  Cir.  1974)…………p17

Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)……………………………………………………………p10

Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99 (1979)…………………………..p7

Hernandez-Avalos v. INS, 50 F.3d 842, 846 (10th Cir. 1995)……………………………p12, 15

Hillcrest Baptist Church v. USA, No. C06-1042Z, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS…………………..p16

Japan Whaling Ass’n v. Am. Cetacean Soc’y, 478 U.S. 221, 230 n.4 (1986)…………………p14

Japan Whaling Assoc., 478 U.S. at 230 n.4……………………………………………………p15

Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957, 964 n.5 (1 th Cir. 1984) (en banc)……………………………..p6

Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1029-30 (1994)………………………………………..p10

Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950)……………………………………………p6

Match-E-Be-Nash-Se-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v Patchal, 132 S.Ct. 2199, 2200 (2012)………………………………………………………………………………………….p12

Md. Dep’t of Human Res. v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 763 F.2d 1441, 1445 n.5 (D.C.Cir. 1985)……………………………………………………………………………….p14

NCUA v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479, 492 (1998)……………………….p12

N. W Forest Workers Ass ‘n, 688 F. Supp. at 3 n.2……………………………………………p17

Pesikoffv.Sec’y  ofLabor,501F.2d757,760-61(D.C.Cir.1974)……………………….p17

Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193,202 (3d Cir. 2005)………………………………………….p16

Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410 (1991)…………………………………………………….p10

Presbyterian Church v. U.S., 870 F.2d 518, 524-25 (9th Cir. 1989)…………………………..p15

Sabhari v. Reno, 197 F.3d 938, 943 (8th Cir. 1999) …………………………………………..p4

Sec’y  ofLaborv.Farino,490F.2d885,889(7thCir.1973)………………………………p17

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 651 (1993)……………………………………………………..p10

Sigman Coal Co. v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 291, 301 (4th Cir. 2000)…………………………………p4

The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. at 603-04………………………………………………p6

Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 185 (D.C. Cir. 2006)……………………………………….p5,14

United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 687-88 (1973)………………………………………………………………………………….p10

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 269 (1990)………………………………..p6

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464 (1981)………………………………………………………………………………………p11

Voting for America, inc v Andrade  488 Fed.Appx. 890…………………………………….…p19

Yeboah v. U.S. DOJ, 345 F.3d 216, 220 (3d Cir. 20031052, 1057 (6th Cir. 1998)…………..…p5

 

12(b)(1)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………p4

12(b)(6)………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………..p4

28 USC §1331………………………………………………………….………………………….……………………………………p4

USC Title 8………………………………………………………………………………………p4

RICO…………………………………………………………………………………………….p4

APA………………………………………………………………………………………..……p4

5 USC §§ 702 et seq…………………………………………………………………….……p4,14

5 USC § 706(2)…………………………………………………………………………………..p6

DACA (Deferred Action on Child Arrivals)…………………………………………………….p7

28 U.S.C. sec 2679(d)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….p9

8 USC §§1182, 1225,1226 , 1324………………………………………………………..……p12

5 USC §701……………………………………………………………………………………..p15

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ is a doctor of Dental Surgery in California and a medical provider for several federal programs for immigrants. She was injured and is under a continuous threat of injury of contracting infectious disease due to actions of the defendants, specifically their illegal trafficking of illegal aliens from US-Mexican border to other   areas of the country. Defendants are: Jeh Johnson, Secretary of DHS, Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of HHS, Barack Obama, US President, Border Patrol, Brownsville division and John Does and Jane Does.   Plaintiff submitted with her complaint an expert opinion, sworn affidavit of epidemiologist Vera Dolan, stating that in her professional opinion plaintiff’s injury of contracting an upper respiratory diseases and necessitating positive pressure oxygen treatment for the rest of her life, is due to actions by the defendants and their trafficking of sick illegal aliens. Plaintiff, also, provided with the complaint a report by the Inspector General of DHS, as well as a representative of the Border Patrol union, both attesting that a number of illegal aliens in custody of the defendants  are indeed sick with Tuberculosis, upper respiratory diseases, Scabies, Lice and other infectious diseases. Additionally, over 500 individuals from Ebola affected region of Western Africa were apprehended illegally crossing US -Mexican border.   Border Patrol reports and news items submitted as exhibits, show that many of the individuals released from custody by the defendants, also, have an extensive criminal record, including murder, kidnapping and assaults.   Some of the released illegal aliens are suspected in having ties with terrorist organizations. Plaintiff is seeking an injunctive relief, a stay, of such trafficking by the defendants of individuals carrying infectious diseases, as well as individuals with a criminal record and suspected terrorists. Plaintiff is seeking a two months quarantine of these individuals in the DHS custody and upon completion of the quarantine, a certification by a licensed medical doctor that these individuals do not carry any infectious diseases. Additionally, she is seeking a criminal record of these individuals to be obtained during this two months quarantine from the countries of origin. Furthermore,  plaintiff is seeking a ban until the end of Ebola epidemic, on all travel from Liberia, Sierra Leon and Guinea, three Western African countries affected by deadly Ebola epidemic, as well as at least twenty one days quarantine of all individuals arriving in the US from these countries legally or illegally. Though 30 countries banned travel from Ebola region and US Congress and public urge defendants to ban such travel, defendants refuse to do so and expose the public to deadly disease. Recent events have made the plaintiff’s case stronger and requested relief more urgent and essential, as an immigrant from Liberia, who was apparently in twenty one days incubation period and asymptomatic, travelled to the U.S. in September of this year. Ultimately, this individual, Thomas Eric Duncan died in Dallas, TX of Ebola. He exposed some 125 individuals to the disease.   Two nurses, who cared for him, and wore full protective hazmat gear,  Nina Pham and Amber Vinson, got infected and are currently fighting for their lives. As a precedent to this  requested quarantine order, Dallas county Judge, Clay Jenkins, signed a quarantine order for a number of individuals, who were in contact with Duncan.  CDC allowed one of the nurses, who cared for Duncan, and who reported running fever, to travel by plane from Ohio to Texas. Currently CDC is seeking all passengers, who travelled on the same plane with Vinson. Due to the fact that several children were on the plane with Vinson and came to school, several schools in Ohio and Texas closed and students were told to be in quarantine. It was reported that CDC now considers placing on the no-fly list all 70 health workers, who cared for Duncan and were exposed to Ebola. At the same time CDC, which is a part of the Department of Health and Human Services, presided upon by the defendant Sylvia Burwell, refuse to place on no-fly list travelers from aforementioned West African countries, even though deadly Ebola epidemic is raging there, over 9,000 people got infected, over 4,500 died and WHO has warned that Ebola epidemic is growing there exponentially and 10,000 new infections are expected   per week and a total of one and a half million infections are expected by January 2015. There is no vaccine for Ebola ad no cure. There is no prospect of a vaccine or cure being available any time soon, as reported 94% of a vast $6 billion budget of the CDC, was not used for a stated goal of seeking vaccines and cure for infectious diseases, but rather was diverted and misappropriated to projects such as community outreach and building bicycle paths in communities and providing healthy menus for the communities. Similarly, millions of dollars were diverted and misappropriated from the NIH budget and used for projects such as a study of 12 year old prostitutes in China, study why lesbians are overweight and study of gay man in Moscow. Current mortality from Ebola is 70% and the patients are treated only with hydration, blood transfusions from patients who recovered and formed antibodies to the disease, and with experimental drugs, which are extremely scarce and their side effects on humans are unknown. Current measures of taking temperature of newly arrived individuals are a sham, as these individuals can be in a 21 days incubation period and not exhibit fever yet, but carry a deadly virus. They can, also, take Aspirin of Ibuprophen to reduce fever and evade detection. Ebola is a BSL-4 by the CDC, Risk Group 4 by WHO. Scientists and medical personnel have always been required to adhere to BSL-4/Risk Group4 precautions when working with Ebola,
REQUIRED at BSL-4 are: negative air pressure in the treatment room, positive air pressure in the protective suit, as self-contained air supply to breathe, a chemical decontamination shower upon exit, a HEPA scrub of the air before it circulates to outside the room  http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/documents/BSL_infographic. Previously NIH shut down Ebola research labs which did not have BSL 4 security. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2007/09/wisconsin-lab-broke-ebola-rules-watchdog-group-says.  US has only 22 BSL -4 beds in the whole country. This nation is not equipped for this epidemic, this nation can competently treat only 22 Ebola patients at a time.  Defendants are actively defrauding the public by claiming that Ebola is hard to contract, while all along they knew that hundreds of nurses and doctors died while caring for Ebola patients in West Africa, even though these doctors and nurses wore full hazmat protective gear, and they  know that Ebola is the highest Level 4 risk disease and we have only 22 beds in the whole country to safely treat Ebola patients.

12B(1) MOTION TO DISMISS IS MERITLESS , PLAINTIFF SATISFIED 12B(1) REQUIREMENT

 

The enabling statute for federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, provides that the district courts have original jurisdiction in all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The case at hand is brought under federal statutes: Title 8-immigration laws, RICO,  APA, 5 USC §§ 702 et seq and other federal statutes which plainly gives this court jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court has found that 28 USC § 1331 serves as the jurisdictional basis for federal courts “to review agency action.” Califano, 430 U.S. at 105; see also Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 891 n.16 (1988) (“[I]t is common ground that if review is proper under the APA, the District Court has jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331”). Courts of Appeals uniformly agree that 28 USC § 1331 is the jurisdictional basis for a suit to

review agency action under the APA. See, e.g., Ana International Inc. v. Way, 393 F.3d

886, 890 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding that this rule applies in the immigration context);

Yeboah v. U.S. DOJ, 345 F.3d 216, 220 (3d Cir. 2003) (SIJS visa case); Sabhari v. Reno,

197 F.3d 938, 943 (8th Cir. 1999) (immigrant visa case); Sigman Coal Co. v. Apfel, 226

F.3d 291, 301 (4th Cir. 2000); Dixie Fuel Co. v. Comm’r of Social Security, 171 F.3d

1052, 1057 (6th Cir. 1998); Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 185 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Additionally, defendants Johnson, Burwell and Obama are citizens of Washington DC and Brownsville Border Patrol station is a citizen of Texas, while plaintiff is a citizen of California, there is a complete diversity of citizenship. Full amount of damages is to be determined during discovery, however  plaintiff asserts that a total amount of controversy is over required $75,000, as the complaint involved causes of action dealing with exposure to deadly diseases as well as defamation per se of the plaintiff.

Further, defense takes issue with the fact that FAC has additional defendants, John Doe’s and Jane Does, however defense did not cite any law, any statute, which states that plaintiff is not allowed to add Jane Doe and John Doe defendants or that plaintiff needs a special leave of court to do so. As such this issue is of no merit.

Further,  defense takes issue with the fact   in the FAC defendants were sued not only as government employees, but also as individuals and states that they were not served as individuals, however defense does not cite any law or statute, which states that the same defendants need to be served the second time.  Defendants were served and are represented and they are free to seek additional representation as individuals if they choose to do so. In the course of the litigation defendants applied pressure on an important witness and filed a motion to quash subpoenas, which represented obstruction of justice, fraud on the court and defamation per se of the plaintiff. These actions were outside their duties as federal employees, as such additional causes of action were added, where they are sued as individuals.  Defense did not provide any statute stating that plaintiff has to serve the same defendants the second time and such assertion is of no merit.

THIS COURT HAS VAST POWERS TO DENY ADMISSION OF ALIENS

Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957, 964 n.5 (1 th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (“Because this

‘undefined and undefinable’ sovereign power does not depend on any constitutional grant of authority, there are apparently no limitations on the power of [admission] …. Aliens may therefore be denied admission on grounds that would be constitutionally impermissible or suspect in the context of domestic legislation.”), aff’d, 472 U.S. 846 (1985). The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. at 603-04 (suggesting that the power is inherent in the sovereignty of every nation); Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659 (1892) Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950) (“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty.”). These courts   conclude   that   aliens   are   in   some   sense   “strangers   to   the Constitution.”    Assuch,courtsreason,anyinjuriesimmigrationlawinflictsuponaliensarenotlegallycognizable.Andbecausealienslackalegally  cognizable  injury,  they  cannot  contest   the  constitutionality  of immigrationpolicyincourt. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 269 (1990) (suggesting that aliens lack certain constitutional protections because they are not part of the “national community”)

APA states that a court can “hold unlawful and set aside agency actions,

findings and conclusions” that meet one or more of six standards. 5 USC § 706(2). Four of these standards are applicable here:

 

  •   Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law;

 

  •  Contrarytoconstitutionalright, power, privilege or immunity;

 

  •  In excess of statutory jurisdiction,authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; or

 

  •  Without observance of procedures required by law.

 

5 USC §§ 706(2)(A)-(D); see also Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401

U.S. 402, 414 (1971) (“in all cases agency action must be set aside if the action was

‘arbitrary, capricious, anabuse of discretion or otherwise no in accordance with law’ or if the action failed to meet statutory, procedural, or constitutional requirements.”) emphasis added.

Challenged agency actions: DACA, perverted application of Flores v Reno, refusal to ban travel from Ebola affected region of Africa, trafficking of illegal aliens by the government and misappropriation or theft of tax payer funds and use of these funds  for trafficking, enticement, fostering, and social, medical and educational needs of illegal aliens satisfy all four standards  which allow this court to “hold unlawful and set aside agency actions,

findings and conclusions.”

PLAINTIFF HAS PROVEN HER ARTICLE 3 STANDING AND CAUSATION

STANDING INCLUDES NOT ONLY AN INJURY THAT OCCURRED, BUT ALSO IMMINENT HARM OF INJURY. WITH EBOLA EPIDEMIC THE PLAINTIFF HAS STRONGER STANDING AS SHE IS SUBJECTED TO EVEN GREATER  IMMINENT HARM

Defense claims that Plaintiff’s injuries could have been sustained while treating other patients, not immigrants, transported to California by the defendants. For this reason defendants assert that the plaintiff has no standing. This assertion is wrong for two reasons:1.  Exhibit 1 of FAC and Exhibit 1 to this opposition  include affidavit from epidemiologist Vera Dolan. Ms. Dolan provided her professional opinion as an epidemiologist with 30 years of experience that in her professional opinion plaintiff’s injuries stem from the actions by the defendants and their transportation of sick illegal aliens. 2. Even if one were to question the causation of the actual injury, standing can also be established by “Threatened injury”. Based on facts and on expert opinion the injury can be traced to the actions by the defendants and can be redressed by the stay requested.  Plaintiff must “show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant,” Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99 (1979) Dolan states that in her professional opinion Taitz  not only  was infected previously from one of these immigrant patients transported by the defendants, but she is in imminent danger of infection with a number of diseases, including Ebola. Defense did not provide any expert opinion, which would contradict findings by expert, Vera Dolan, as such Taitz established her standing. Threatened injury, imminent risk of contracting serious and deadly diseases, can be traced to actions or inaction by the defendants and this threatened on-going injury can be redressed by the requested injunction and quarantine, which satisfies standing requirement.

On August 27, 2014 during the first STAY/Injunction hearing in this case and in motion pleadings, Plaintiff, Taitz, predicted that this nation will see proliferation of Ebola into the US and sought a ban on travel from Ebola region and quarantine all newly arrived individuals. Her prediction became a reality and requested relief became an absolute necessity.

Taitz, as a doctor working with immigrants, is in imminent danger of contracting a deadly Ebola disease. Placing a ban on travel and quarantine will remove this imminent threat of infection, as such, a ban on travel and quarantine address the redressability component of standing.

Defense argues that other requested relief would not redress  the injury sustained by the plaintiff. This is not the case. DACA represents an unlawful action by the defendants, which is a major magnet for illegal immigration, which in turn brings with it a wave of infectious diseases. Similarly, current  implementation of Flores v Reno amounts to a massive trafficking of illegal aliens, which similarly leads to a flood of infectious diseases. While   banning flights from Ebola affected countries and instituting quarantine is more urgent and the plaintiff is hopeful that this stay would be granted during October  29th hearing,  DACA and Flores need to be addressed in the near future as well, in order to limit illegal immigration and stop the wave of infectious diseases.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES DO NOT HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM COMMON LAW TORTS, THEY CAN BE SUED UNDER 28 USC 2679

Defense states that  28 U.S.C. sec 2679(d)  “accords federal employees absolute immunity from common law tort claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties.”  This is simply a wrong statement, there is nothing in the statute stating that federal employees have absolute immunity, it states quite the opposite, federal employees can be sued and the Attorney General / Department of Justice are tasked in providing defense for such federal employees.

RISK OF EXPOSURE TO NEW EXOTIC DISEASES EXCEEDS REGULAR RISK TO HEALTHCARE PROVIDER

Defense states “exposure to-and contraction of-ordinary communicable respiratory infections is an intrinsic, ongoing risk of contact with other people, and especially a healthcare provider”. Defense is misrepresenting the facts. Plaintiff was exposed and is in imminent threat of contracting new, previously unknown diseases, such as Enterovirus D68, Antibiotic resistant Tuberculosis and Ebola.  Actions by the defendants exposed her to a much greater threat than an ordinary threat of known common infections. Aforementioned exposure is not generalized, but concrete and particularized to her as a health care provider working with immigrants.

THE FACT THAT AN INJURY IS WIDELY SHARED, IS NOT  BARRIER TO ARTICLE III STANDING

Recently a number of courts fund, that the fact that an injury is widely shared is not a barrier to Article III standing. In FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11,23 (1998) , the Court clarified the generalized grievance cases by reading them in connection with standing law’s requirement that an injury be concrete. The Court concluded that, while the abstractness and breadth of an injury may be correlated, the sheer breadth of an injury is not itself relevant. The Article III question turns only on whether the injury is sufficiently concrete. On this point, the Shaw cases concluded that the potential injury at stake in those cases is concrete enough to be judicially cognizable. Accordingly, there is no Article III obstacle to standing for the types of immigration law injuries described herein. Prudential concerns were not at issue in Akins, because Congress had decided that the nationwide informational injury at stake in that case should be legally cognizable. FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11,23 (1998).  Akins is consistent with earlier cases in which the Court suggested that the widespread or uniform nature of an injury did not preclude standing. See Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449-50 (1989) (“The fact that other citizens might make the same complaint does not lessen appellants’ asserted injury.”); United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 687-88 (1973) (“[S]tanding is not to be denied simply because many people suffer the same injury …. [Otherwise] the most injurious and widespread Government actions could be questioned by nobody.”); see also Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1029-30 (1994) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“Furthermore, ‘[i]t is axiomatic that racial classifications do not become legitimate on the assumption that all persons suffer

them in equal degree.”‘ (quoting Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410 (1991) (alteration in original)); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 651 (1993) (“[R]acial classifications receive close scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit the races equally.”). Note also that the Supreme Court on at least one other occasion appears to have granted broad, nationwide standing on the basis of an expressive constitutional injury.See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968).

 

PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING AS A TAXPAYER, DEFENSE  MADE AN ERROR IN CLAIMING THAT TAXPAYER STANDING IS LIMITED ONLY TO ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE CLAIMS

Defense erroneously claims that taxpayers have standing only in cases challenging government expenses in Establishment clause cases, citing Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464 (1981).  While the court of Appeals standing in Valley Forge, it never stated that taxpayer standing is limited to Establishment clause cases.  Flast v Cohen 392 U.S. 83 (1968), quoted in the FAC provides a three prong test: the action by the government should stem from its taxing and spending power, it affects the taxpayers and it is prohibited. Taitz provided multiple evidence of defense using taxpayer funds  to traffic illegal aliens around the country, pay for their health care and education and pay $84,000 per year to foster families to foster them. These actions were clearly prohibited under Flores v Reno, which prohibits release of individuals who might represent harm to themselves and others.

THERE IS NO JURISDICTIONAL BAR TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED

Defense misrepresents the case in alleging that there is a jurisdictional bar since Congress mandates the statutory scheme. However the plaintiff is not asking the court to create a new statutory scheme, plaintiff is seeking a stay and injunctions to stop defendants from violating the existing statutory scheme. As such there is no jurisdictional bar.

DEFENDANTS DO NOT HAVE A DISCRETION TO VIOLATE EXISTING US LAWS AND ENDANGER CITIZENS THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS

Defense claims that actions by the defendants were within defendants’ discretionary functions. Flores v Reno agreement specifically states that individuals can be released from custody only if they do not represent harm to themselves and others. Plaintiff has shown that defendants are egregiously violating this agreement in releasing individuals who carry serious infectious diseases, among them Tuberculosis and Ebola. When defendants are releasing illegal aliens from custody and trafficking them all over the country and referring them to doctors, like Taitz for treatment through Medicaire/Medical program, they are egregiously violating existing immigration laws and Flores v Reno agreement and  they do not have a discretion to do so.

ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF IS OUTSIDE THE STATUTORY ZONE OF INTEREST IS WITHOUT MERIT, PLAINTIFF IS WITHIN A STATUTORY ZONE OF INTEREST

The “zone of interest” test does not require a plaintiff to establish that Congress specifically intended to benefit the plaintiff. Rather, there is a two-step inquiry. “First, the court must determine what interests the statute arguably was intended to protect, and second, the court must determine whether the ‘plaintiff’s interests affected by the agency action in question are among them.’” Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487, 499 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting NCUA v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479, 492 (1998)). One court has described this test as “a fairly weak prudential restraint, requiring some non-trivial relation between the interests protected by the statute and the interest the plaintiff seeks to vindicate.” Hernandez-Avalos v. INS, 50 F.3d 842, 846 (10th Cir. 1995).

Defense concedes that APA provides standing and only forecloses the suit where damages are only marginally related or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute. Match-E-Be-Nash-Se-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v Patchal, 132 S.Ct. 2199, 2200 (2012). This is not the case here.   Department of Homeland Security and Department of Health and Human services, as well as the whole Title 8, US Immigration laws, particularly 8 USC §§1182, 1225,1226 , 1324, exist in order to protect the public against infectious diseases and crime. Exhibit 1 to the FAC as well and Exhibit 1 herein, second sworn affidavit of the expert, Epidemiologist Vera Dolan, confirms that Taitz is in a zone of danger, as a doctor who is on the front lines working with immigrants. Additionally, Taitz submits Exhibit 2, Declaration of Otolaryngologist (Ear, Nose and Throat surgeon)  Dr. James Heinrich, who attests that he, as well as an anesthesiology doctor, and the whole team of nurses contracted highly virulent Laryngeal Tuberculosis while operating on an illegal alien patient from Mexico. Similarly, two nurses in Dallas contracted deadly Ebola virus while treating a recent immigrant from Liberia.  This shows not only that Plaintiff is in the zone of danger, but other health professionals are in the zone of danger and the stay should be granted as requested as it is in public interest.

Further, standing in a defamation cause of action is undeniable. Plaintiff was directly defamed, was presented in false light in the eyes of the court and defamed per se, when defendants pressured and intimidated a federal whistleblower to sign a statement that he did not want to testify in order to present Taitz, a licensed attorney, as one who made a fraudulent statement to the court. Defendants and Jane Dows further defamed the plaintiff in the eyes of the court by removing pages from pleadings, sealing exhibits and inferring that it was done by the plaintiff. This is a direct defamation and the plaintiff has undeniable standing.

Similarly, defendants engaged in RICO conspiracy  to violate existing immigration laws, existing Flores v Reno agreement, obstruct justice, commit fraud, intimidate the whistleblowers, which led to spread of infectious diseases, which directly affected the plaintiff and placed her in an imminent danger of re-infection and ongoing injury.

APA ALLOWS THIS ACTION and waives souereign immunity

5 USC 702 states that there is jurisdiction and standing:“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States: Provided, That any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for compliance.” The APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity applies to agency action or inaction,

including action or inaction by an agency officer or employee. Several courts have held

that this waiver applies in suits against unlawful agency action even if the suit is not. Japan Whaling Ass’n v. Am. Cetacean Soc’y, 478 U.S. 221, 230 n.4 (1986) (holding that § 704 expressly creates a “right of action” absent clear and convincing evidence of legislative intention to preclude review); Md. Dep’t of Human Res. v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 763 F.2d 1441, 1445 n.5 (D.C.Cir. 1985) (describing the APA as a “generic” cause of action for persons aggrieved by agency action). As a “cause of action,” the APA provides an individual with a basis to sue a federal agency for unlawful agency action where Congress has not specifically provided such a basis anywhere else in the law. It also “permits the courts to provide redress for a

particular kind of ‘claim.’” Trudeau v. Federal Trade Commission, 456 F.3d 178, 189

(D.C. Cir. 2006). Because the APA creates this specific cause of action, the Supreme

Court has held that a separate indication of Congressional intent of the right to sue is not

  1. Japan Whaling Assoc., 478 U.S. at 230 n.4; see also Chrysler Corp. v. Brown,

441 U.S. 281, 317 (1979) (finding that a private right of action is not necessary because

review is available under the APA); Central S.D. Cooperative Grazing District v.

Secretary, 266 F.3d 889, 894 (8th Cir. 2001) (“Although [the statute at issue] does not

authorize a private right of action, the [APA] provides for judicial review of agency

action”); Hernandez-Avalos v. INS, 50 F.3d 842, 846 (10th Cir. 1995) (a plaintiff who has

alleged a cause of action under the APA need not rely on an implied right of action under

any other statute).

brought under the APA. Trudeau, 456 F.3d at 186; Presbyterian Church v. U.S., 870

F.2d 518, 524-25 (9th Cir. 1989)(waiver found in a challenge to INS investigation

brought directly under the Constitution).

Defense misrepresents limitations of 5USC §701, which do not apply in the case at hand

 

Defense claims that APA review is barred in  per 5 USC §701, and INA § 236, 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (e)

Apprehension and detention of aliens

(e) Judicial review

The Attorney General’s discretionary judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole.

This statute has nothing to do with this case, as plaintiff does not appeal any decision by the Attorney General. There is nothing in this statute preventing this court from banning travel from countries affected by a deadly epidemic or ordering quarantine. So, this argument is of no merit.

 

PER DARBY V CISNEROS, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT REQUIRED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, AS THERE ARE NO MANDATED STATUTES OR REGULATIONS FOR A RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF

 

The Supreme Court has held, that there are limits on when exhaustion of administrative remedies can be required in a suit under the APA. Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993). Specifically, Darby held that in federal court cases brought under the APA, a plaintiff can only be required to exhaust administrative remedies that are mandated by either a statute or regulation.

For a case to be exempt from the exhaustion requirement under Darby, the following

criteria must be met:

  • the federal suit is brought pursuant to the APA;
  • there is no statute that mandates an administrative appeal;
  • Either: a) there is no regulation that mandates an administrative appeal; or b) if

there is a regulation that mandates an administrative appeal, it does not also stay

the administrative decision pending the administrative appeal; and

  • The adverse agency decision being challenged is final for purposes of the APA.

 

There is no statute or regulation which would mandate the plaintiff to seek an administrative appeal in a specific type of a case as brought by her. As such, she was not  required to exhaust administrative remedies.

The Darby rule has been applied in recent immigration cases brought under the APA, with the courts concluding in each that no exhaustion of administrative remedies was required. See, e.g., Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487, 498 (6th Cir. 2006) (APA

challenge to denial of a spousal immigration petition); Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193,

202 (3d Cir. 2005) (applying Darby and finding that possibility that removal proceedings

could be instituted in future in which adjustment application could be renewed did not

establish a mandatory exhaustion requirement); Duran Gonzales v. DHS, No. C06-1411P,

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82502, *8-9 (W.D. WA. Nov. 13, 2006) (APA challenge to

DHS’s willful refusal to follow Ninth Circuit law); Hillcrest Baptist Church v. USA, No.

C06-1042Z, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

 

PLAINTIFF SATISFIED 12B(6) REQUIREMENT

To overcome 12b(6) challenge, the injuries have to be plausible. Plaintiff provided expert opinion of epidemiologist Vera Dolan, stating that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. occurred due to actions by the defendants. Plausibility was satisfied.

Additionally courts have  recognized that  ” Immigration laws regularly injure citizens in legally cognizable ways….[C]ourts have recognized on occasion, for example, that immigration law can impinge on citizens’ associational and economic interests in ways that uncontroversially satisfy Article III’s standing requirements” Adam Fox, Citizenship, Standing and Immigration Law http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview Volume 92, Issue 2, 2-31-2004.

Contrary to the assertion by the defense, multiple courts found that citizens have standing challenging immigration laws and regulations.  N. W Forest Workers Ass ‘n, 688 F. Supp. at 3 n.2 (holding that nonprofit organization “concerned with the economic, environmental and demographic effects of immigration” had standing to challenge immigration regulations on the ground that the regulations improperly expanded the scope of a guest worker program); cf Fed’n for Am. Immigration Reform, Inc., 93 F.3d at 900 (assuming, without deciding, that a nonprofit immigration group’s alleged economic injury stemming from Mariel boatlift sufficed for purposes of constitutional standing).

 

Pesikoffv.Sec’y  ofLabor,501F.2d757,760-61(D.C.Cir.1974)(holdingthat putativeemployerhadstandingtoseekAPAreviewofdenialoflaborcertificationforalien)

Sec’y  ofLaborv.Farino,490F.2d885,889(7thCir.1973)(“Itisclearthatthese [employers haveadequatelyallegedthattheywillbeeconomicallyinjuredifnotpermittedtoemploy thesealiens.”);  cf   FirstGirl,  Inc.  v.Reg’ManpowerAdmin,  499  F.2d  122,  124  (7th  Cir.  1974)

(grantingstanding,subsilentio,toprospectiveemployertochallengedenialoflaborcertification).

Based on the above precedents Taitz has standing in challenging government actions in admitting aliens who carry infectious diseases and cause significant harm to her and similarly situated individuals.

 

 

DEFENSE DID NOT DENY AND CONCEDED  THAT THEY COMMITTED FRAUD ON THE COURT WHEN THEY CLAIMED THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS DO NOT GET HEALTH CARE THROUGH GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

During 10.27.2014 hearing Judge Hanen specifically asked the defense whether illegal aliens are receiving health care through the government programs. Defense flagrantly lied, committed fraud on the court, by stating that illegal aliens do not receive health care through government programs, that the government only pays for their transportation.

Plaintiff provided the court with the excerpt of medicare –CA division web site, which states that undocumented individuals can  get Medicare. Now defense admits that illegal aliens can get medical care, that they are indeed getting medical care through government programs, however it is limited to pregnant women and individuals with chronic diseases and it does not include dental care.

Firstly, in response to their statement plaintiff advises the court that dental care is a part of complex multispecialty care for both pregnant women and people with chronic diseases. Customarily primary care physicians refer such patients to the dentist within the same government programs to make sure that dental decay and infections do not affect the rest of the body.  As a matter  of fact, surgeons refuse to schedule patients for major surgeries, such as heart surgery, until there is a signed release from a dentist.

Secondly, from the experience of the plaintiff, the programs are not limited to pregnant women and individuals with chronic diseases. She sees individuals of both genders, of all ages, with or without chronic diseases, receiving both medical and dental care  at the taxpayer’s expense.   Prior to August 27, 2014 hearing Plaintiff requested from the defendants production of documents and depositions. Plaintiff was seeking to provide the court with full documentation of thousands of illegal aliens receiving such care. Defendants refused to provide documents or submit to depositions until there is a ruling on their 12b1 and 12b6 motion. Defense should not be rewarded for refusal to provide documents and names of individuals. At any rate, this is a matter of discovery to be conducted post 12b(1)/12b(6) hearing.

EMERGENCY STAY SHOULD BE GRANTED

As shown in the recent decision by the Fifth Circuit granting a stay  in the Voter ID case  Voting for America, inc v Andrade  488 Fed.Appx. 890, Fifth Circuit looks at four parameters:

(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he
is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.  Plaintiff satisfied all four. Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, as she provided competent plausible evidence supported by an expert opinion that she was harmed by the actions by the defendants and she is in imminent danger and under an ongoing threat of further injury in the form of infection with serious deadly diseases.  Plaintiff has shown that she, as a medical provider, as a doctor working with immigrants, will be irreparably harmed by continuous exposure to deadly diseases, if the stay is not granted.    Defendants did not show any injury whatsoever to any other parties interested in the proceedings.   Lastly, and most importantly, there is a great public interest in granting the stay and protecting the U.S. citizens from deadly epidemics, such as Ebola, Tuberculosis, Enterovirus D68 and others.  Just as Ron Zermeno,president of local border patrolunion issued a statement disclosing that government actions cause spread of epidemics, Rose Anne DeMoro, president of nurses union speaking out that nurses and other health care professionals are being lied to, there is no protocol, no proper protective gear and there is a spread of deadly diseases (Exhibit 14). Noteworthy, is the fact that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as well members of Conclusion: This court should  deny defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Respectfully, /s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ 10.16.2014

PROPOSED ORDER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

 

TAITZ,                      )                              Case # 14-cv-00119

 V                                )       HONORABLE ANDREW S. HANEN PRESIDING

JOHNSON, ET AL   )

     1. Motion to Dismiss is denied. Court orders STAY of the following:

2. Under 8 USC §1182, 1225(c)(1)(A), 1229 (a) as well as 5 USC 702 and inherent power of the US District Court this court issues a STAY/ ban of all travel into the U.S. from three West African countries of Liberia, Sierra Leon and Guinea until the end of the deadly Ebola epidemic. The end of the epidemic to be certified by the WHO and CDC.

3. The court issues a STAY all US visas for individuals from Liberia, Sierra Leon and Guinea until the end of deadly Ebola epidemic.

4. This court orders Defendant Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, to place on a no-fly list all individuals from aforementioned nations until the end of the deadly Ebola epidemic. 

5. The court  STAYS release from DHS and HHS custody all of illegal aliens  until they complete two months quarantine, until there is a written certification by a licensed medical doctor that these illegal aliens do not carry infectious diseases, until there is a criminal record of these aliens from the countries of origin and until this court finds that there is a valid legal basis for granting an asylum in the US for these illegal aliens.    

Signed

Andrew S. Hanen, U.S. District Judge

Dated

Radical MO Democrat State Senator Jamilah Nasheed Cuffed & Arrested in #Ferguson

Posted on | October 21, 2014 | 1 Comment

Radical MO Democrat Jamilah Nasheed Cuffed & Arrested in #Ferguson

Democrats’ Senate hopes collapsing into a black hole

Posted on | October 21, 2014 | 3 Comments


Democrats’ Senate hopes collapsing into a black hole

According to polling numbers reported in the last few days, the odds of the Democrats retaining a majority in the United States Senate have gone from low to extremely low. Now the issue is not whether they will lose the Senate majority, but just how badly they will lose it. The bottom is falling…

Examiner.com from RSS
« go backkeep looking »