Press release Attorney Orly Taitz is seeking individuals who were infected with Covid or other diseases from illegal aliens transported by the Biden’s DHS all over the country

Posted on | March 30, 2021 | 7 Comments

Press release Attorney Orly Taitz is seeking individuals who were infected with Covid or other diseases from illegal aliens transported by the Biden’s DHS all over the country

Currently, Biden/Harris administration opened the border and allowed thousands of illegal aliens to pour in. These illegal aliens are transported by the administration all over the country, even though we are in the midst of the pandemic and many of these illegals are infected with Covid 19.

Similar situation existed during the Obama administration. At a time Attorney and Doctor of Dental surgery, Orly Taitz, filed a legal action in  Texas  seeking to stop this practice. Presiding judge Andrew Hanen was extremely concerned with this practice by the government.

” The Government claims that it should prevail for two reasons. First, it claims that it has the
unfettered right to put illegal immigrants, even those with extremely dangerous infectious
diseases, anywhere, at any time, and that no one has standing to question its actions. Secondly, it
claims that Dr. Taitz has not shown that its actions caused her any harm and/or she has not
shown that its actions, if halted, would result in redress of Dr. Taitz’s injuries.

Dr. Taitz claims that the Defendants are needlessly exposing innocent individuals to communicable
diseases. These claims are not without a factual basis. Dr. Taitz has brought forth evidence
supporting her claim that she has suffered some form of pulmonary-related health problem. Further,
she has referred this Court to evidence that in at least one instance the Government has exposed
individuals in Indiana to persons with infectious tuberculosis. State of Indiana Refugee Health
Program Annual Report, Ind. State Dep’t of Health,
https://www.in.gov/isdh/files/State_of_Indiana_Refugee_Health_Program_Annual_Report_2015. pdf (last
visited June 7, 2016).
Moreover, the Government has taken the position that it can place sick immigrants anywhere in the
country without taking any precautions and that no person or entity except Congress can stop it. It
argues it can do this regardless of the consequences to the individuals living here in the United
States. For example, in response to a hypothetical question in a hearing before this Court,
Defendants agreed that it was their position that they could settle immigrants

suffering from the deadly Ebola virus next door to the mayor of this community without warning and
without taking any other measures to prevent the mayor and his family and neighbors from
contracting the disease when they dropped by to welcome the immigrants to the neighborhood. [Doc.
No. 88 at 16-19]. The Government stated not only that it could unilaterally expose this community
to danger, but also that its right to do so was unfettered and that no one except Congress had the
right to question its actions. [Id.]. These statements echo the Government’s pleadings in the
instant case. In its Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 42], the Government wrote that “this Court may not
. . . enjoin decisions related to transportation of aliens, or otherwise enjoin the myriad
processes of inspection, detention, release and removal implicated in this case.” [Id.
at 21]. In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the Government claimed that Dr. Taitz “c[ould] not ask
this Court . . . to set aside the detention or release of any aliens . . . ,” regardless of the
dangers imposed. [Doc. No. 74 at 20].
Dr. Taitz is greatly troubled by this position and by the callousness displayed by the Government
in this regard. She has suggested that it is the job of the Department of Homeland Security (the
“DHS”) to keep the individuals in this country safe and secure, not to expose them to contagious
diseases. The DHS, however, has taken the position that it has the unquestioned right to endanger
the residents of this country if it is so chooses. The DHS claims that the only avenue of relief a
citizen might have is “the right to redress Congress for their grievances.” [Id. at 19].”

At a time the case was dismissed on the summary judgment, as it was extremely difficult for Taitz to prove that the damages stem from specific illegal aliens who were transported by the government and from the government conduct and of course the government did not provide any information on illegal aliens that were transported. However, it is clear that if a plaintiff, who is a member of the border patrol or someone else who was in direct contact with illegal aliens was infected with Covid, there is a direct nexus  and the case can be successfully prosecuted against the government.

Please, read the ruling by the judge provided below in the PDF form and text. Please, contact Attorney Orly Taitz at orly.taitz@gmail.com if you suffered direct damages, such as being infected with Covid 19 or other infectious disease or other direct damages

Taitz v Johnson Order by Judge Hanen on DHS infecting the population

Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 23 Filed in TXSD on 08/13/14 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

DR. ORLY TAITZ, § Plaintiff,
§
§
VS. § CIVIL ACTION
NO. B-14-119
§ JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of the Department § of Homeland Security, et al.,
§ Defendants. §

ORDER

The Court will hold a hearing on all pending motions on August 27, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. Counsel and/or
their witnesses should be prepared to address all topics raised either by the motions or the
Government’s response. These topics include: (1) the standing of the Plaintiff (either
individually or as a class representative); (2) the ability of an individual citizen, even with
standing, to question executive authority over immigration matters; (3) the Defendants’ past and
current efforts to secure the southern border of the United States (including the efforts to stop
the influx of illegal aliens, minors and adults in 2014); (4) all aspects of the apprehension,
processing and subsequent placement of the illegal minors in 2014 included specifically the recent
influx from Mexico and Central America; (5) the Defendants’ efforts to comply with the Flores
settlement in conjunction with the recent influx of minors; (6) the application, if any, of the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to this case; and (7) the examination, diagnosis and
treatment of any illegal alien minors with any medical conditions in 2014; and (8) the detention
and/or all other means to house illegal alien minors who have entered the country in 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 23 Filed in TXSD on 08/13/14 Page 2 of 2

The Court will rule as quickly as it can after the hearing given the emergency nature of the
motion.
Signed this 13th day of August, 2014.

Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge

Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 92 Filed on 09/09/16 in TXSD Page 1 of 8
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

September 09, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

Dr. Orly Taitz, §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:14-CV-119
§ Jeh Johnson, et al., § Defendants.
§
§

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss, Or, In the Alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment. [Doc. No. 74]. Pursuant to its review of the motion’s merits, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court finds that summary judgment is warranted. It hereby grants that motion.

I. Background

In a prior order [Doc. No. 69], this Court dismissed, with one exception, all of the claims made by
Dr. Orly Taitz in her Amended Complaint Against All Defendants. [Doc. No. 40]. This single
exception was her claim requesting equitable relief relating to injuries she allegedly suffers now
and injuries she will allegedly suffer in the future caused by the conduct of the Defendants
(“Government” or “Defendants”). [Id. at 4-6]. These alleged injuries are pulmonary- related
injuries Dr. Taitz claims resulted from her exposure to illegal immigrants, specifically illegal
immigrant minors, or the relatives who accompany them to her office. Dr. Taitz alleges

Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 92 Filed on 09/09/16 in TXSD Page 2 of 8

she was exposed to contagious diseases in the course of providing these children dental treatment
under government programs. [Id. at 5-7, 8]. The Government conduct of which Plaintiff complains is
that the Government has allegedly transported and continues to transport illegal immigrant minors
who are suffering from various diseases, including pulmonary diseases, from Texas to California,
without warning anyone (or taking any other appropriate preventive measures) that these immigrants
have communicable diseases. [Id. at 4-6, 8]. Dr. Taitz claims
this conduct exposed her to minors with various pulmonary diseases and that she subsequently
contracted one of these diseases. She maintains this conduct will cause her additional injuries in
the future. In brief, Dr. Taitz argues that the Government’s conduct is making her sick.

II. Applicable Law

Summary judgment is proper where no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Rule 56 requires the
court to grant summary judgment “after adequate time for discovery, and upon motion, against a
party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to
that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In order to survive a summary judgment motion, the non-movant
must identify specific evidence in the record and articulate the manner in which that evidence
supports that party’s claim. Johnson v. Deep E. Texas Reg’l Narcotics Trafficking Task Force, 379
F.3d 293, 305 (5th Cir. 2004).
Further, to maintain a cause at all, a party must show that she has standing. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). “For standing, a party must demonstrate the

2

Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 92 Filed on 09/09/16 in TXSD Page 3 of 8

‘triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability.’” Aransas Project v. Shaw, 775 F.3d 641,

648 (5th Cir. 2014). Demonstrating “[c]ausation requires [showing] a ‘traceable connection’ between
the plaintiff’s injury and the defendant’s conduct.” Id. at 648. Demonstrating causation does not
require a showing of actual proximate causation. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components,
Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1391 n.6 (2014). It does, however, require that the plaintiff show her
“injury is ‘fairly traceable’ to the defendant’s actions.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Crown
Cent. Petroleum Corp., 95 F.3d 358, 360 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Lexmark, at 1391 n.6. Finally, to
fulfill the redressability requirement, “it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely
‘speculative,’ that the injury [complained of by the plaintiff] will be ‘redressed by a favorable
decision [by the Court in which relief is sought].’” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.
One avenue by which a plaintiff can establish standing is under the Administrative Procedure Act
(the “APA”). This is, in fact, the claim that Dr. Taitz has made herein. The APA provides that a
“person suffering a legal wrong because of [Government] agency action, or adversely affected or
aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review
thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702 (2012). A plaintiff seeking standing under the APA “must [first] show that
[she is] ‘adversely affected or aggrieved,’ i.e., ha[s] suffered injury in fact.” Nat’l Credit
Union Admin. v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479, 504 (1998) (citations omitted).
Secondly, “the plaintiff must establish that the injury [she] complains of . . . falls within the
‘zone of interests’ sought to be protected by the statutory provision whose violation [by the
Government agency] forms the legal basis for [her] complaint.” Id. (citations omitted). Finally,
APA standing, being a form of standing, is subject to the “three elements” “contain[ed]” in the
“irreducible constitutional minimum of [any form of] standing.” Lujan, 504

3

Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 92 Filed on 09/09/16 in TXSD Page 4 of 8

U.S. at 560-61. These three elements are, as noted above: injury in fact, causality, and
redressability. Id.

III. Discussion

The Government claims that it should prevail for two reasons. First, it claims that it has the
unfettered right to put illegal immigrants, even those with extremely dangerous infectious
diseases, anywhere, at any time, and that no one has standing to question its actions. Secondly, it
claims that Dr. Taitz has not shown that its actions caused her any harm and/or she has not
shown that its actions, if halted, would result in redress of Dr. Taitz’s injuries.

Dr. Taitz claims that the Defendants are needlessly exposing innocent individuals to communicable
diseases. These claims are not without a factual basis. Dr. Taitz has brought forth evidence
supporting her claim that she has suffered some form of pulmonary-related health problem. Further,
she has referred this Court to evidence that in at least one instance the Government has exposed
individuals in Indiana to persons with infectious tuberculosis. State of Indiana Refugee Health
Program Annual Report, Ind. State Dep’t of Health,
https://www.in.gov/isdh/files/State_of_Indiana_Refugee_Health_Program_Annual_Report_2015. pdf (last
visited June 7, 2016).
Moreover, the Government has taken the position that it can place sick immigrants anywhere in the
country without taking any precautions and that no person or entity except Congress can stop it. It
argues it can do this regardless of the consequences to the individuals living here in the United
States. For example, in response to a hypothetical question in a hearing before this Court,
Defendants agreed that it was their position that they could settle immigrants

4

Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 92 Filed on 09/09/16 in TXSD Page 5 of 8

suffering from the deadly Ebola virus next door to the mayor of this community without warning and
without taking any other measures to prevent the mayor and his family and neighbors from
contracting the disease when they dropped by to welcome the immigrants to the neighborhood. [Doc.
No. 88 at 16-19]. The Government stated not only that it could unilaterally expose this community
to danger, but also that its right to do so was unfettered and that no one except Congress had the
right to question its actions. [Id.]. These statements echo the Government’s pleadings in the
instant case. In its Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 42], the Government wrote that “this Court may not
. . . enjoin decisions related to transportation of aliens, or otherwise enjoin the myriad
processes of inspection, detention, release and removal implicated in this case.” [Id.
at 21]. In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the Government claimed that Dr. Taitz “c[ould] not ask
this Court . . . to set aside the detention or release of any aliens . . . ,” regardless of the
dangers imposed. [Doc. No. 74 at 20].
Dr. Taitz is greatly troubled by this position and by the callousness displayed by the Government
in this regard. She has suggested that it is the job of the Department of Homeland Security (the
“DHS”) to keep the individuals in this country safe and secure, not to expose them to contagious
diseases. The DHS, however, has taken the position that it has the unquestioned right to endanger
the residents of this country if it is so chooses. The DHS claims that the only avenue of relief a
citizen might have is “the right to redress Congress for their grievances.” [Id. at 19].
While this Court understands the reason for Dr. Taitz’s concern, a response to a motion for summary
judgment requires the non-movant to come forward with specific facts to raise an issue of material
fact on all applicable elements of the claim. In order to prevail on the motion for summary
judgment, Dr. Taitz, as the non-movant, must raise an issue of material fact as to

5

Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 92 Filed on 09/09/16 in TXSD Page 6 of 8

whether the Government’s conduct she complains of caused her physical injuries. As a corollary, she
must also show that the equitable relief she requests from this Court—“a quarantine of individuals
who illegally cross[] the border” pending medical examination and medical release [Doc. No.
40]—would keep her from suffering the physical injuries of which she complains. Dr. Taitz has
provided evidence that raises a fact issue as to the allegation that she may have suffered
health-related injuries. She has not, however, provided evidence showing that any of the illegal
immigrant minors for whom she provided dental care were: (1) in Government custody during
the relevant period, (2) transported by the Government to California, or (3) infected with any
communicable diseases. She also has not produced evidence to raise a fact issue as to whether
the injuries she suffered were caused by exposure to the allegedly ill children or to their
relatives who accompanied them to her office. This is so despite the fact that this Court has given
her ample time and even ordered the Government to cooperate with her in discovery efforts.
The Government’s conduct about which Dr. Taitz complains is its transporting ill, illegal immigrant
minors from Texas to California. Dr. Taitz must establish a causal connection
between the transportation of the immigrants and her injuries, which means at this stage she must
provide evidence raising a fact issue that Defendants transported one of her patients, who was ill,
to California, who then exposed her to a disease, which Dr. Taitz contracted. A previous order from
this Court described this exercise as an “attempt to connect the dots.” [Doc. No. 69 at 31].
It could also be termed “demonstrating causality.” As noted, this Court ordered Defendants to
provide Plaintiff with the information, if any existed, that she needed to try to connect the dots.
[Doc. No. 70 at 1-2]. No summary judgment evidence has been provided to this Court which raises a
fact issue as to whether any of Dr. Taitz’s patients were in Government custody, were transported
by the Government to California, were sick at the time, and, most importantly, that

6

Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 92 Filed on 09/09/16 in TXSD Page 7 of 8

their illness exposed Dr. Taitz to the illness she herself contracted. It is Dr. Taitz’s burden,
under Celotex, to provide evidence which raises an issue of material fact related to these
elements. Finally, while it is true that an injunction forcing the Government to quarantine sick
individuals who cross the border illegally would prevent their being transported while ill from
Texas to California, there is no evidence that such an order would address the injuries Plaintiff
alleges, since she has not factually connected her injury to the Government’s act of transporting
illegal immigrants from the Texas border.

IV. Conclusion

To survive a summary judgment motion, Dr. Taitz must demonstrate that she has evidence in support
of each essential element of her claim. Stated differently, she cannot prevail on her claim without
a showing of this evidence, and Plaintiff has failed to make a showing of any evidence
demonstrating a causal link between Defendants’ conduct and her injury. Celotex places the burden
on the non-movant to, among other things, raise a material fact issue as to this causal link. Dr.
Taitz has not satisfied her burden under Celotex to raise a fact issue concerning an essential
element of her claim: that her alleged health-related injury is “traceable” or “fairly traceable”
(the causation requirements stated in Aransas Project and Friends of the Earth) to the Government’s
conduct. Dr. Taitz has not, as required by Johnson, identified evidence in the record connecting
the Government’s conduct to her alleged injuries. Dr. Taitz has provided no evidence demonstrating
a causal link or connection between the Government actions which she criticizes and her injury;
consequently she has not carried her burden to demonstrate an issue of material fact. Stated
differently, Dr. Taitz has not shown, as required by Lujan and Aransas

7

Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 92 Filed on 09/09/16 in TXSD Page 8 of 8

Project, that the equitable relief she requests from this Court—equitable relief ordering the
Government to quarantine persons who cross illegally at the border pending examination for
infectious diseases and their medical clearance—would redress her injury.
This Court understands Dr. Taitz’s concerns, especially given the argument the Government made in
this case―that the DHS could without warning and without taking appropriate precautions expose its
own residents to dangerous conditions and that the residents of the United States would have no
right to legal redress. Nevertheless, concerns, regardless of how justified they may be, do not
equate to proof. Without ruling on the Government’s claim that it has unfettered power to endanger
its own residents, the Court finds that it is correct that Dr. Taitz has failed to provide
competent summary judgment evidence to maintain the claims herein.
The Court hereby grants the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 74]. Signed this _9th
day of September, 2016.

Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge

Comments

• Search for:
• Tweet

• EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !

• EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — Indiana Trial of Obama, 2nd Copy

• Evidence on Barack Obama

  Obama File with Exhibits
  Affidavit of Paul Irey
  Obama file Exhibits 1 - 7
  Obama file Exhibit 8 - Part 1
  Obama file Exhibit 8 - Part 2
  Obama file Exhibits 9-13
  Obama file Exhibits 14-21
  Request for Docs under FOIA and Emergency Motion for Reconsideration
  Exhibits sent to Inspector Generals and Congress

• RSS Feed: Subscribe for Free RSS Feed

  

• ---

  PETITION TO CONGRESS:
  Ban importation of 200,000 Syrian migrants into the US

  

  ---

• Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day

  

• URGENT! PLEASE SIGN PETITION TO CONGRESS

• OrlyTaitzEsq.com

  • Untitled

• TAITZ REPORT

  Subscribe today to stay in touch with our progress. Send this channel out to your email lists. Thank you for your support. CHANNEL (Google Plus) SUBSCRIBE TO YOUTUBE
• 

• Official Facebook

  
  

• Recent Posts

  • (no title)

• IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!

  Historic DVD Now Available! DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling. --------- To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.

• Advertisement / Sponsors

  
  29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
  Ste 100
  Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
  orly.taitz @gmail. com
  (949) 766-7687
  
  
  --------------------------------------
  
  Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
  --------------------------------------
  
  

  Bumper Sticker
  $9.99 thru PayPal

  --------------------------------------
  
  
  --------------------------------------

  Orly Taitz Photo Collections

  
  

• December 2024

  M	T	W	T	F	S	S
  						1
  2	3	4	5	6	7	8
  9	10	11	12	13	14	15
  16	17	18	19	20	21	22
  23	24	25	26	27	28	29
  30	31

• Pages

  • #409755 (no title)
  • …Defendant Obama defaulted in Grinols et al v Obama et al
  • …Grinols Subpoenas
  • ..Grinols Order, Summons, TRO, Complaint
  • .Affidavit of Mike Zullo
  • 1. Judd v Obama
  • 2. Farrar v Obama
  • 3. Taitz v Sebelius
  • 4. Taitz v Indiana, IN Judge Orders Trial
  • 5. Taitz v Astrue
  • 6. Mississippi Filed Complaint Update
  • 7. Taitz Walters v Sec of State Kansas
  • Videos
  • Video: Orly before NH Election Committee