11 Responses to “The left continues attacking me in conjunction with TX immigration case. On 12.15.15 Judge Hanen denied Arpaio’s request. He took my request under advisement and will rule after January 8. All donations to cover expenses of travel to TX to the hearings are greatly appreciated”

1. W
   December 20th, 2015 @ 8:00 am

   Wow Leopoldo is truly an idiot

2. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   December 20th, 2015 @ 8:21 am

   you can post a comment on his web site and let him know

3. Rich
   December 20th, 2015 @ 8:37 am

   Orly, God Bless you for what you are doing since all our well beings are at stake. In the meantime we must restore our economy now. We should be PUTTING PRESSURE ON OBAMA FOR USING THE VETO AND THE DEMOCRATIC SENATE to keep this country shut down. Everything else is a distraction. The democrats and Obama are taking no heat. This is crazy. Would it be allowed for you to raise these arguments in Court? Maybe get The Courts opinion about just how serious is the need for us to start pointing to this blockade as having a desperate need to be halted at once. At least make the electorate aware of who is responsible for this blockade that has killed jobs. If this issue were in the news daily the people would stand behind you 1000 percent.

4. Analyst
   December 20th, 2015 @ 1:36 pm

   Having lots of tech problems today and yesterday, on Saturday.

   So…I’m wondering why Judge Hanen wouldn’t have allowed you, Orly, to do this by Skyp, to save a lot of time and $$??

   And that Joe is really something else!

5. Earl Lee
   December 20th, 2015 @ 5:54 pm

   Every red-blooded American should be donating to Orly. After all, her record of success is second to none. Actually, it ‘s none, by why quibble?

6. Naenae
   December 20th, 2015 @ 6:47 pm

   Too bad, you sorry wench.

7. Rod Riddle
   December 20th, 2015 @ 9:00 pm

   Here’s a great opportunity to entrap all the frauds in DC. In Jan Congress will vote on auditing the Fed. If I was a reporter I would send out a questionnaire to every Congressman & Senator asking them if they support transparency. Then after the votes are cast on auditing the Fed reveal to the American people who the frauds are by way of the “No Votes” cast.

8. Mahryya
   December 21st, 2015 @ 1:52 am

   This is my reply Mr. Leopold article. I had no time to post on his webite.

   Mr. Leopold:

   [In a little noticed order issued earlier this month Hanen commanded the parties to appear in his courtroom on Tuesday December 15 to explain the effect of a procedural decision of the 5th Circuit Appeals Court “on the rights of individuals to intervene in the case.” (The intervenors are people who have expressed an interest in becoming parties to the Texas immigration case).]
   Thank you for pointing out that there was a 5th Circuit Appeals Court procedural decision “on the rights of individuals to intervene in the case.” This seems to indicate that Sheriff Arpayo and Dr. Taitz have a right to becoming parties to the case. It would be helpful if you post the text of the 5th circuit procedural decision.
   You ask: [When I read Hanen’s order the first question that came to my mind was: Why have a hearing now?] I think that Judge Hanen looks for extra input that would help the Courts to better consider the lawsuit. The answers that you have given to this question is a recommendation rather to give up the lawsuit:

   1)[If the Court agrees to hear the case this term the lawsuit will not likely return to Hanen’s court room for months, if ever.] Thus if the lawsuit will return to Hanen Court, the Hanen’s hearing now would help to use the interveners help in that court.
   2)[Most legal scholars and observers believe that Hanen was wrong to block the president’s executive actions last February.] This has no validity. The first word “Most” of your sentence has no content. How many legal scholars have you asked for their opinion? Have you asked all of the legal scholars? Your sentence appears to be meaningless.
   3)[If the Supreme Court hears the case this term there’s a pretty good chance they’ll toss out the entire case, rendering a hearing on the intervenors pointless.] How could anyone know now if the case would be “tossed”? Those who want the case to be heard should act with the expectation that it would be heard.

   [Wouldn’t it make more sense for Hanen to put the whole case on hold until after the Supreme Court reviews it?] No, it would not for those who want to stay the actions o this administration.

   [Why waste precious tax payer dollars and limited judicial resources on a procedural hearing about the role of the intervenors if there is a chance the case won’t survive Supreme Court review?] Tax payers lose their lives, health, and property due to the actions of illegal immigrants.

   [On that point even the GOP politicians who brought the case seem to agree. They’ve joined the Obama administration in a motion asking Judge Hanen to shelve the case until after the Supreme Court makes a decision.] Your previous argument are all faulty. Please bring up some facts to support that what you have stated in this sentence is true. In addition, Judge Hanen appears to expect the lawsuit in his court again. So he is not inclined to shelve it now. This is why Hanen held hearings in his Court December 15.

   [What’s driving Hanen to go forward with a hearing at this point? Doesn’t he have other cases on his docket that need his immediate attention?] Hanen regards this lawsuit as important as the large part of the public does. So Hanen takes the time for hearing the case at this point.

   [Maybe Hanen’s sense of urgency has more to do with who the intervenors are?] This is certainly so. Hanen wants to bring in knowledgeable and experienced people with regards to immigration issues and litigation on this matter.

   [Among those seeking to impose themselves on the litigation are Orly Taitz, queen of the disgraced and discredited birther movement, which challenged President Obama’s U.S. citizenship and legitimacy as President…] Has any Court or a Committee of the Congress demonstrated Mr. Obama eligibility for POTUS? There is plenty of info to the contrary. Mr. Obama’s Publication of his birth Certificate over the internet is a fraud, since the certification characteristics of the physical document cannot be preserved when producing a file for the internet. Taitz and many others have brought up many lawsuits on the matter of Mr. Obama ineligibility for POTUS. The facts of the matter have not been contested: the lawsuits have been either dismissed or decided in favor of Mr. Obama without any reasons presented by the Judges.

   [(…Taitz specifically sought out Hanen to file several anti-immigrant lawsuits)] What is the problem with that? Taitz is an experienced trial lawyer.

   […and the infamous Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who’s built his brand by terrorizing Latino neighborhoods, surreptitiously investigating the wife of a federal judge and violating folks’ civil rights.]

   The situation is quite complex. You are not providing facts, but you are referring to these situations using highly negative terms. Arpayo has been elected Sheriff in his county for many decades.

   [Arpaio lost a case on this same issue in the D.C. District and on appeal at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.] Loosing a case does not mean much. All Courts’ decisions are highly political.

   [It’s difficult to imagine that either Taitz or Arpaio have a “concrete, personalized, and legally protectable” interest in the case as required for intervention.] What is your legal basis for saying this? You just don’t want Dr. Taitz ans Sheriff Arpayo to be heard?

   [Yet Hanen has set the hearing for Tuesday, December 15 and that presumably means the interests of Taitz and Arpaio will be heard.] Judge Hanen finds this useful. But you are not. The problem is why? And there is nothing you can say to explain your position.

   [All this underscores the real nature of the Texas GOP attack on DAPA and DACA which, as a panel of the 5th Circuit appeals court observed in its order affirming Hanen’s hold on DAPA and DACA expansion, involves “policy disagreements masquerading as legal claims”.]

   Policies have to be conducted within the frame of the existing laws. Policy disagreements are rooted in the different interests of the parties involved. The legal means are the means to prevent undesirable policies to the parties. There is no “masquerading” of policy disagreements as “legal claims”. The legal matters are just how the parties’s interests can be reconciled in the Court. There is no “real nature” to the lawsuit that you have discovered in your sentence.

   [DAPA and DACA wouldn’t have even been necessary if the GOP House leadership had allowed an up or down vote on comprehensive immigration reform in 2013.] This is a pure speculation. Hanen’s Court deals with the reality of illegal immigration.

   [Taking the court’s apt description a step further, the Republican challenge to the deportation deferrals is more about the party’s rabid disdain for “anything Obama” than the sanctity of the law.] Illegal Immigration causes problems for the American Citizens, and Mr. Obama and his administartion perpetuates this matter. Hanen’s Court helps to resolve the issues.

   [Everyone knows that immigration reform would have passed Congress and the President would have signed it into law obviating the need for a deportation deferral.] How can you know this for a fact? How many US Citizens have you asked about this? Seeing the emptiness of your arguments, I wonder if Judge Hanen has invited you to his Court together with Arpayo and Taitz.

   [In the aftermath of the House GOP’s intransigence Obama set forth immigration enforcement priorities which target felons, national security threats and recent border crossers rather than DREAMers and undocumented parents.] You imply that Mr. Obama actions do satisfy the US Citizens security concerns. Yet you are not telling why they do.

   [While he was able to slap a temporary hold on DAPA and DACA expansion, Hanen—who has not shied away from launching gratuitous attacks on the Obama administration’s immigration enforcement policies—knows that the President’s enforcement priorities are unassailably legal.] You are putting thoughts into Hanen’s head. How do you know that Hanen regards “President’s enforcement priorities are unassailably legal.”? If Judge Hanen knew that, he would have applied all effort to dismiss the lawsuit. He has many other things to do.

   [Is that why Hanen appears so eager to open his courtroom to a discussion of the role of the intervenors, including the infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio and birther queen Orly Taitz, as the Supreme Court decides whether it will hear the Texas immigration case this term?] Certainly not as explained in the previous paragraph.

   [It seems that the participation of Apraio and Taitz will do little more than inject more nasty politics into the GOP’s shamelessly political lawsuit.] This will bring more attention and publicity to the lawsuit. This would also clarify the litigation. I can tell you that you are simpleminded obfuscator of what goes on in this lawsuit.

9. EyeballNews
   December 21st, 2015 @ 6:02 am

   I wonder if Judge Hanen would have approved Arpaio’s request if he had bothered to actually show up in person.

10. W
    December 21st, 2015 @ 8:54 am

    I did have the time to post on his website. and Sheriff Joe is now begging for money on email and can’t even make a court date ??? do you know what he does to people that don’t make court dates on his cases ? They spend a lot of time in his jails. I have zero faith in Sheriff Joe to do anything he had his chance he’s done

11. Uncle Charles
    December 21st, 2015 @ 10:04 am

    Poster #6:…

    Naughty, naughty…

    Too bad you can’t post something that’s really worthwhile, huh?

    Is that your level of communications?

    Did you fall asleep after posting??? LOL!

Leave a Reply