Excerpt from TX hearing Taitz v Johnson, Obama, Burwell showing that citizens have standing to sue the government for damage done to them

Posted on | September 7, 2014 | 25 Comments

You have to read this. the judge is stating that he is shocked by the position of the government claiming that no citizen has standing to sue, when the government is causing damage. Government attorney is claiming that we have a de facto tyranny

Pages 7-33 from Taitz v Johnson transcript

What I’d like to do is talk about standing first. And,

Dr. Taitz, let me say that I have not signed your motion for pro hac vice because I haven’t figured
out whether you’re a lawyer
in the case, a party in the case or both or neither. But since

you are a lawyer and since a party can always represent

yourself, you know, I considered you here representing yourself.

DR. TAITZ: Yes.

THE COURT: Let me start with what I think is an easy

7

 
one and see if we can get some common ground here before we go forward. And, Mr. Hu, you or Mr.
Kisor may — either one of you can respond to this.
If the government is effectuating a policy that is injuring,

directly injuring an individual, doesn’t the individual have standing to file a lawsuit to stop
that policy?
MR. KISOR: May I approach the podium, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. You may.
MR. KISOR: As a general matter, the answer is

sometimes. The injured party would have to have standing, and so the injury would have to be
concrete and particularized. It would have to be traceable to the defendants, in this case the
government’s conduct, and the Court would have to have some mechanism to redress it.
There are areas where an injured person who was injured —

been injured by some government employee or some governmental policy by an agency who has a
concrete injury can file a civil suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act which acts as a waiver of
sovereign immunity. And what that person would first have to do in order to exhaust is to file an
administrative claim with whatever agency the plaintiff claimed had injured him or her.
And then if 180 days have gone by and the claim was either not

adjudicated or denied, could file a federal tort claims lawsuit.

THE COURT: What about an ongoing tort, though? MR. KISOR: I’m sorry, sir?

8

 
THE COURT: An ongoing tort.

MR. KISOR: It would — an ongoing tort, I suppose the Court could enjoin if there was otherwise
standing and jurisdiction.
THE COURT: And by standing, you mean if the ongoing tort was proximately causing injury to that
person, that person would have standing to enjoin it.
MR. KISOR: If they had Article III standing and prudential standing. And if the injury is so
generalized as to be injuring them and everyone else, then that becomes a nonjusticiable political
question under case law that discusses prudential standing which we’ve cited in our brief.
And here what we have is a policy or a mechanism to enforce

the Immigration and Nationality Act, and — and therefore, it is so widespread and affects every
American that it should be resolved by the political branches under the political process.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, is it your position in this case that Dr. Taitz doesn’t have standing
because we’re not only hurting her, but we’re hurting everybody and that’s okay?
MR. KISOR: No, Your Honor. The government’s position is Dr. Taitz does not have standing in this
case because she fails on all three prongs of the standing test. And in the alternative, if she
were able to succeed on all three prongs of the standing test, would nonetheless lack prudential
standing.
THE COURT: Because of?

9

 
MR. KISOR: Because under the case law, the alleged injury is so abstract or generalized such as in
the — as an example, in the proper operation of government, which is essentially what she’s
challenging here, the proper operation of government.
THE COURT: Why do you say it’s proper?

MR. KISOR: Why do I say the current —

THE COURT: I mean, you’re asking me to assume it’s proper.
MR. KISOR: It’s proper because it’s being administered in accordance with the Immigration and
Nationality Act, which is Title 8 of the United States Code.
THE COURT: And so as long as you’re doing that, or you

at least claim to be doing that, you can hurt anybody regardless of the outcome?
MR. KISOR: Not necessarily, Your Honor, but first there would have to be a showing that — that
there was the injury as in the enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act or the mechanism
by which it’s being implemented, the regulations.
THE COURT: Let me — I tried to start with what I

thought was a simple example, and maybe I’m striking out here.

The federal government has a person that has Ebola in its custody. And it takes that Ebola person
and says: I’m going to transfer that person out of our custody and put him in a
facility without warning anybody that he’s got Ebola; put him in

10

 
a facility where he’s being cared for by Mr. Jones, and I’m not telling Mr. Jones he’s got Ebola.
And Mr. Jones later contracts Ebola; and the immigrant that has Ebola continues to, you know, run
around loose infecting other people. And I don’t know if Ebola is an infectious process or not,
but I’m using that as an example.
You’re telling me that no one can enjoin the federal

government from doing that?

MR. KISOR: Your Honor, what I was saying was that in order to file a civil suit against the
federal government to get an injunction, there would have to be a waiver of sovereign immunity,
which is the mechanism by which the case could come into federal court. So — and it would be the
plaintiff’s
burden to establish the waiver of sovereign immunity. And in this case we don’t have one, or we
don’t have one identified in the plaintiff’s filings.
THE COURT: Okay. But so you’re telling me that the government can infect anybody it wants to in
the United States and no one has a remedy? That’s what you’re telling me. I mean, I’m shocked
you’re taking that position.
MR. KISOR: Your Honor, that’s not precisely what I’m

saying because the government has been sued under various statutes for infecting people. I’m
thinking of the Tuskegee airmen case in the 1940s.
THE COURT: But I’m talking about an ongoing program

11

 
that is endangering Americans. And I’m not saying this one is. I’m saying hypothetically there’s
an ongoing program that’s endangering Americans. And you’re saying that no one can stop it and
that I don’t have jurisdiction to even hear the case?
MR. KISOR: I’m saying — Your Honor, under your hypothetical, I can — I can conceive of
situations where that would be true, but that’s not this case.
THE COURT: I didn’t say it was this case. That’s why I

started with what I thought was an easy one, and then you started saying no, and I thought — you
know, I was trying to set the parameters on both ends and work my way in and —
MR. KISOR: Yes, Your Honor, I —

THE COURT: You already knocked down one of my parameters by saying I didn’t have jurisdiction to
even stop that.
MR. KISOR: Under your hypothetical, I — I guess it

would depend. And I’m not prepared certainly to concede standing in this case.
THE COURT: I wasn’t asking you this case.

MR. KISOR: Yes, Your Honor. I — in order to file a civil suit, there would have to be standing
and a waiver of sovereign immunity, and I can conceive of waivers of sovereign immunity. Certainly
if the government is doing something unconstitutional, the Court could enjoin or restrain it.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Now, that was my

12

 
situation over here. My situation over here is more like the Clapper case that was recently heard,
although maybe even less specific than that, and that is I’m just a taxpayer, and I don’t like what
the government is doing with my money, and I think
it’s a waste of time to fly these immigrants around the nation, a waste of time and money. If
nothing else, they ought to have to take the Greyhound. And I assume it would be your position in
this one over here that there’s never going to be standing.
MR. KISOR: That’s correct, Your Honor. There isn’t

going to be taxpayer standing unless there’s a waiver of sovereign immunity that expressly permits
it. And in the hypothetical that you just suggested, if everybody would have taxpayer standing and
everybody has 100 percent of opinions across the spectrum, the government would get 100 different
suits, and the Courts would be asked to do 100 different things to accommodate everyone; and that’s
why we have a political process, to legislate and enact laws that way.
THE COURT: Okay. So, I mean, what I’m trying to do is

hone in on this case.

MR. KISOR: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, let’s assume — and again, this is hypothetical because I’m not sure Dr. Taitz’s
complaint actually vocalizes this. That she’s saying: I work at a place where immigrant children
are being housed. They are being shipped
from South Texas where they’re coming into custody either —

13

 
probably DHS custody and then ultimately maybe HHS custody, and they’re shipping them to a facility
in South Texas (sic) I work. There’s no warning about any diseases they have. They don’t
tell us anything about these kids. They show up, and I am asked

to take care of them. And all of a sudden I find out they’ve got all these diseases and they make
me sick.
And I’m assuming in this hypothetical that, No. 1, she’s actually set that out. And No. 2, that
there’s medical evidence to support it, which so far I have not seen. But assuming those two
things, wouldn’t she have standing to enjoin the government or at least ask for an injunction?
MR. KISOR: I think that under — if I understand your

hypothetical correctly, Your Honor, you’re talking about an employee of the United States?
THE COURT: I’m talking — no. I’m talking about let’s

say an independent contractor.

MR. KISOR: Okay. And so that would — because if it was an employee, there would be a worker’s
compensation issue and there could be a worker’s compensation lawsuit.
THE COURT: FECA Act.

MR. KISOR: FECA matter, exactly right, Your Honor. If it is not an employee of the United States
and the conduct is tortious, there could be a Federal Tort Claims Act kind of case to the extent
that the plaintiff can show a state law tort, negligence or willful endangerment or something.

14

 
THE COURT: Okay. But again, I’m not asking — or the plaintiff is not asking for damages.
Plaintiff is asking quit sending these sick kids all around the nation. You know, don’t send them
off some place either without warning people that they’re sick; or two, waiting until they’re well
and then sending them on.
MR. KISOR: Assuming that this is a concrete injury

that’s traceable to some policy of the defendants, which I believe — or the government, which I
believe is the first two prongs of your hypothetical, so that your question goes to —
THE COURT: And I’m also assuming there’s medical evidence to support it.
MR. KISOR: Yes, Your Honor. And so if I understand your question, it goes to the redressability
prong of the standing test. If I have that right, then I believe that that would probably — under
that hypothetical would fail under the redressability prong as a political question.
THE COURT: So the government could continue to put

people at risk and they’d have no remedy?

MR. KISOR: Well, there would be a remedy. THE COURT: What would that be?
MR. KISOR: Assuming there was a waiver of sovereign immunity, there could be monetary damages
under the statutes that permit that. There could be injunctive relief under the Administrative
Procedures Act. To the extent that it was a

15

 
final agency action, I suppose the APA operates as a waiver of sovereign immunity. I don’t think
it’s an issue in this case. But under your hypothetical, Your Honor, a court would be able, under
the Administrative Procedures Act, to enjoin agency action that was causing a present danger to
people.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. All right. Ms. Taitz,

let me get you to —

MR. KISOR: If I may add one thing that — THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. KISOR: Assuming that the agency action was arbitrary and capricious or not in accordance with
law.
THE COURT: And what? I’m sorry. I didn’t hear the

last. Arbitrary, capricious or?

MR. KISOR: Or not in accordance with law.

THE COURT: All right. Dr. Taitz, if you will — Taitz. I’m sorry if I mispronounce your name.
Let me — I’m going to ask you the same questions I’ve been asking Mr. Kisor. And
maybe I’ll skip right — skip the hypothetical and go right to

it.

I mean, do you feel that you — and by “you,” I mean you,

Dr. Taitz, not lawyer Taitz. Do you feel you have standing as a taxpayer to complain about this?
And if so, why?
DR. TAITZ: Not only as a taxpayer, Your Honor. As a matter of fact, I have brought the whole
treatise of hundreds of cases where citizens had standing to sue the federal government

16

 
on malfeasance and specifically in regards to immigration law policies. If I may give to —
THE COURT: Cristi?

DR. TAITZ: I’m sorry. Actually this one. MR. KISOR: Thank you.
DR. TAITZ: So this is actually very common. And I

would like — if I may give you one more case. Here you go. This is — I would actually like to
start with a case that — where U.S. District Court Judge, Judge Lamberth in the District of
Columbia, has issued a ruling stating that the plaintiffs had standing. And the reason I would
like to start with this case, because it has to do with what I am asking for, quarantine. And that
case didn’t even talk about deadly diseases.
This case is Orchid Growers Association that has sued the Department of Agriculture and stated that
the orchids that were brought to the United States of America from Taiwan, where imported, in the
pots, in the soil contained moss. And this moss had a pest that might potentially affect orchids
that — those in Hawaii.
And Judge Lamberth has ruled that this association has standing to bring a legal action stating
that — and Judge Lamberth has found that because there is imminent injury, that there will be an
injury to their economic interests and their ability to grow those orchids, he found standing.
And specifically the Court stated, as a matter of fact, very

17

 
similarly, the government stated that there is no standing. And Judge Lamberth, who is, by the
way, now here in Texas being a senior — retired senior judge wrote, “Unlike aliens” — excuse me
just one second. I apologize.
It found, “The Court concludes contrary to defendants’ argument, that plaintiff has adequately
demonstrated for purposes of establishing standing that alien pests may invade Hawaii and its
native orchids through eggs laid in the sphagnum moss in which maturing orchids are cultivated in
Taiwan.”
Further he stated, “That to establish the requisite Article

III standing, plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating at an irreducible minimum that it has
suffered concrete particularized injury which is actual and imminent; that injury is fairly
traceable to action of defendants; and the injury is likely redressable by a favorable decision
from the Court.”
The Court has found, “Plaintiff alleges it will be — it

will be injured — potential, not actual — but potential injury both because of increased
competition and because of possible alien insect infestation resulting from imports.”
He continues explaining that the acts of this pest in the moss. And he stated, “Plaintiff further
maintains they will be injured economically by the Final Rule as well. Plaintiff will no longer
enjoy the advantage from domestic sales of mature orchids, plants, and will not be able to produce
nursery products in a domestic environment free from invasive alien

18

 
plant pests. Defendant argue that plaintiff’s claims are conclusory and plaintiff has failed to
produce any evidence to support their assertions. The Court concludes, contrary to defendant’s
arguments, that plaintiff has adequately demonstrated for purposes of establishing standing that
alien pests may invade Phalaenopsis orchids that are cultivated in Taiwan. Plaintiff has
established that plaintiff’s native
Hawaiian orchids may be injured in a concrete and particular way by pests that may be introduced
into the environment,” and so forth.
THE COURT: Well, isn’t — I mean, I don’t mean to interrupt you, but isn’t that — basically he’s
asking — it’s gone through the APA, the Administrative Procedures Act, and isn’t this a request to
enjoin a rule change by the Department of Agriculture?
DR. TAITZ: Yes.

THE COURT: Isn’t that a different situation than what we have here?
DR. TAITZ: Well, what it is, what Mr. Kisor is stating that you have — that there has to be a
waiver of immunity by the government in order to sue the government. This is absolutely not true.
There are multiple cases where the government was sued because specific policies have affected
citizens. In this case, the growers were standing (sic) that potentially it will affect their
orchids.

19

 
THE COURT: Well, isn’t it — but the ability to challenge a new rule is built into the APA, isn’t
it?
DR. TAITZ: In this case, it’s not — actually they did

not — I don’t believe this is an APA. It’s stating that it is Department of Agriculture that
they’re suing. But it is an example that suing — that suing the federal government does not
require waiver of sovereign immunity.
Further, I would like to bring more cases that deal specifically with immigration policies.
For example, in the legal treatise that I provided for Your Honor, it’s a treatise by a Professor
Adam Cox who is a professor in Princeton University. And he specifically argues that citizens have
standing, legally cognizable standing to challenge immigration policies.
For example, a case of Fiallo v Bell. The Court has found

that immigration law regularly injures citizens by expelling or excluding people with whom citizens
wish to associate. And the Court did find standing simply because the — the plaintiffs in this
case were arguing that their equal protection rights are affected and they cannot associate with
their relatives.
Here my equal protection rights and my economic rights are

affected due to the fact that I am in imminent danger on daily basis, ten or 20 times a day, from
individuals who are being transported to California and who have not just, you know, something that
affects plants, something that can be a deadly

20

 
disease. It affects my health and health of my employees.

THE COURT: Well, tell me — wait a minute. Let stop

you there. Tell me how that is. It’s not clear to me. I mean, I’ve read — I think I’ve read
everything you filed. I hope I have. But it’s not clear to me under what basis you actually
see these immigrant children.

DR. TAITZ: Well, I am — I am a doctor provider with Denti-Cal and Medi-Cal. Those are specific
government programs where doctors are providing care for poor, for immigrants. The doctors are
typically checked. They check the office. They check all of the certifications. And they — the
government refers patients to me directly to my office. Many of those patients are patients that
are being transported by the government.
Furthermore, in the State of California, what the government

is doing, it is paying every foster parent $7,000 per month to foster those illegal alien children.
And —
THE COURT: According to the news yesterday, California

has said they’d take all these kids. I mean, that’s what the governor said. “Bring them on.”
DR. TAITZ: Well, unfortunate — well, Governor Brown

happens to be a liberal democratic who believes in open borders, and he believes in North American
Union and open borders. However, Governor Brown does not represent all of the citizens. And
specifically this is a tort. And —

21

 
THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. What’s a

tort?

DR. TAITZ: In that the government is being, at the very minimum, negligent or acting with reckless
disregard to public health and to human life in that it is transporting individuals, knowing that
those individuals are afflicted with infectious diseases, with deadly diseases such as tuberculosis
and rabies. And I will go further in regards to those diseases. They are transporting those
individuals, and they are not warning the public.
THE COURT: Where do you plead negligence?

DR. TAITZ: I cannot point specific area of the pleadings because —
THE COURT: Here’s one of the problems I have. I may have some problems with Mr. Kisor saying I
can never sue the government even if they’re out here making people jump off a cliff, but here’s
one of the problems I have with you. I’ve read your complaint several times, and you document your
argument fine. But it’s hard for me to determine what your
actual causes of action are. I mean, you have a cause of action basically based on Title 8, United
States Code, Section 1324,
and I’m not sure you can sue somebody under that cause of action even for negligence per se.
You have a cause of action that basically accuses the

government of treason. And you have pled — and this one I

22

 
think you perhaps, maybe not adequately, but you certainly raised a RICO cause of action. But I
don’t recall any negligence pleading.
DR. TAITZ: Well, first of all, I am — I am entitled to

sue under civil RICO. As an individual who was harmed, I am entitled to — to bring a civil RICO
and bring wanton actions and violations of criminal statutes under civil RICO.
Further —

THE COURT: Can you sue the government under RICO? DR. TAITZ: I can sue government employees and
government officials in civil RICO. And I will be happy to provide Your Honor with — with
precedents on that. There are a number of precedents where government employees were sued in civil
RICO.
Further, there is negligence.

Thirdly, this — the administration is employing medical professionals who are supposed to check
those individuals who have infectious diseases, and they have to be quarantined. As a matter of
fact, I have a release from Health and Human Services stating that individuals who have infectious
diseases are quarantined. However, this is not being done. So this is also
a medical —

THE COURT: How do you know it’s not being done?

DR. TAITZ: Because I have a report from the Border

Patrol stating that individuals were transported from Texas to

23

 
California with open sores, open sores from scabies and other diseases, with coughing, individuals
who had tuberculosis, H1N1 virus.
And by the way, a couple of officers, if I might state, can

testify on the phone. I have an email stating that they did not get an okay from the government to
travel and testify until yesterday after I already left for the airport. So for that reason, they
could not testify, but they are willing to testify on the phone and confirm what I am stating.
Also you have a press release from a Border Patrol officer

who is a health — who is health and safety officer with a local union who specifically stated that
individuals are not being checked, and they are arriving with multiple infectious
diseases.

THE COURT: Mr. Kisor, what is the government’s position? I mean, are they checking these kids for
health problems?
MR. KISOR: Absolutely, Your Honor, and we have

witnesses here who can testify as to the manner that they’re being medically screened, both when
they come into custody and then subsequently. Individuals, for example, who have — excuse me —
tuberculosis, as an example, would be taken to a hospital for treatment. And to the extent that
they be quarantined pursuant to, you know, hospital regulations about how to go
about that, that is absolutely happening. We have a witness

24

 
here today that can testify as to those processes if the Court desires.
DR. TAITZ: May I respond?

THE COURT: Go ahead.

DR. TAITZ: Well, for example, they — right here in Texas in Laredo station, they had an
individual, an illegal alien, who individual died from rabies. He went into a coma and was sent to
Corpus Christi hospital where he died of rabies. According to the information that I got from the
doctor, 30 governmental employees, nurses and Border Patrol agents did get shots from rabies.
However, 700 detainees who were illegal aliens did not get the shots, and they were just released.
So this — I can sue — and that’s another cause of action

for medical malpractice, because as I’m receiving more information, those — those employees who
worked specifically for government-run detention camps or employees who are working
for this organization called Baptist Family Services have not — are committing medical malpractice
because they are allowing individuals who have psychosis, who are suicidal, who have infectious
medical diseases, they’re allowing them to be just transported to different areas and dispensed
around the country. They are not getting proper treatment. So this is clear medical malpractice.
And in this case, the defendants are the superior, are

respondeat superior.

25

 
THE COURT: Dr. Taitz, let me — let’s assume for a minute it is medical malpractice. I mean, let
me preempt
Mr. Kisor. I’m sure if I were in his position, I’d say even if

you had standing to bring the case you brought, you certainly don’t have standing to bring somebody
else’s medical malpractice case.
DR. TAITZ: Oh, my medical malpractice case because I am

affected by the medical malpractice which is committed by those healthcare officials who are not
advising the public. And I have reports stating that the medical officials were told to be under a
gag order not to disclose to the public the extent of infectious diseases that we are seeing in
those camps. So I am affected, and I am in imminent danger until and unless the recent redress of
my grievance by this court.
THE COURT: Okay. You mentioned you were a — you were

contracted, and I think perhaps I interrupted you because I had asked you how exactly you were
exposed to these children. Let me go back and tell me factually how you are — you provide dental
work?
DR. TAITZ: Yes.

THE COURT: To — now, do you provide it — in the last six months, have you provided dental work
to the alien children we’re talking about?
DR. TAITZ: Yes, on a daily basis.

THE COURT: All right. And through what — are you a

26

 
contractor to the federal government?

DR. TAITZ: They — the federal government places them with foster families, and then they fall
under Denti-Cal program. It’s — there is Medi-Cal and Denti-Cal, government programs where —
THE COURT: Okay. That’s a California program?

DR. TAITZ: Well, it’s actually connected to the federal government. For example —
THE COURT: Well, I mean, it’s administered — it’s

Denti-Cal, C-A-L, right? I mean, it means California, right?

DR. TAITZ: But it’s — actually it’s the grant that comes from the federal government.
THE COURT: No, I understand that. I just wanted to identify it, because, I mean, obviously I
don’t think we have Denti-Cal here in Texas.
DR. TAITZ: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay. So you are treating these children. And so let’s say in the last six months or
let’s say since January 1 of 2014, how many of these children have you treated?
DR. TAITZ: Several hundred probably.

THE COURT: And what do you treat them for?

DR. TAITZ: Well, they often come with pain. They — many never had any dental treatment done in
the countries of origin, so I am in close contact. I’m doing extractions. I’m doing root canals,
fillings, crowns. And many of them, they

27

 
show up, they are coughing. They — they have infectious diseases. One of my assistants was —
got sick several times. I got sick.
And when you are a dentist, you work in a very close

proximity with the patient and you deal with the patients. For example, if I am drilling, the
blood becomes airborne. As a matter of fact, dentists are more at risk than others just because we
work with those machines. And the blood becomes airborne. Saliva becomes airborne. It is in the
air, so it’s very easy to get infected.
THE COURT: I think everybody would admit, even

Mr. Kisor if I held his feet to the fire, that if you’re a dentist and you’re doing some dental
work on somebody, they’re breathing on you. I mean, you’re in close contact. I think everybody
agrees with that.
How do you — and you know these are alien children because

of what?

DR. TAITZ: Because —

THE COURT: Do they have some kind of form that’s filled out or —
DR. TAITZ: They — when — actually they show up with a

card. This is a Denti-Cal card. And we make just a copy of the card that they present, and then
we bill the government. So I have this card that they are presenting. I also take health history
where they’re telling me that they just came in. They

28

 
came from whatever country. And —

THE COURT: Now, do you speak Spanish, or do you have someone that speaks Spanish in your office?
DR. TAITZ: (Speaking Spanish.) I speak Spanish. And also one of my assistants speaks Spanish.
We also get people who are not just from Central America. We have people coming
from other countries. I speak Russian. I mean, I speak several

languages. I have doctors who speak Persian. And I have people who are from Africa.
Just the other week I saw somebody who was from Sudan. And I actually asked him: Are you — is
there any Ebola in your area? I just was worried about not tuberculosis, but Ebola.
And he said no, there’s no Ebola in Sudan. But it is — it is

the matter of public health.

By the way, I also would like to draw Your Honor’s attention to a recent case. And it was
regarding Google Android consumer privacy litigation. And what was interesting, that the Court —
and it’s a 2013 case from Northern District of California.
And the Court have found that, “Plaintiff may satisfy the

injury in fact requirement to have standing under Article III and may be able to bring a civil
action without suffering dismissal for want to standing to sue without being able to assert a cause
of action successfully.”
So — and I can provide Your Honor with a caption. It’s —

it was United States District Court, Northern District of

29

 
California, March 26th, 2013, and it’s 2D-2013-WL-1283236.

So in this case what I filed so far is an emergency motion for stay. And if the standing is
granted and — I would like to file a full complaint for a more definitive action. But what it
states, that even if I did not plead a specific — specific —
it specifically states that even if I did not plead — I did not

assert a successful — a specific cause of action, if Your Honor is not convinced whether it is
negligence or that it is medical malpractice or whether it is civil RICO, the Court can find that
there is standing to bring the complaint; and later on for purpose of summary judgment, decide if
— if indeed the case was proven.
So I also would like to bring several other cases that

specifically relate to immigration laws where standing was found.
For example, Abourezk v Reagan. And it’s a 1986 case, and it is in the treatise that you have,
Your Honor. The Court has found — it was a holding that citizens who invited foreign speaker have
standing to seek review of visa denials because unquestionably are aggrieved by the State
Department’s resort to Section 182 to keep out people they have invited to engage in open discourse
with them within the United States.
So in Abourezk v Reagan, the Court has found that people who simply wanted to invite somebody as a
speaker, and according to immigration policies, he was not allowed to — was not allowed

30

 
entrance, still the Court found that they had standing. This is much more important issue for
myself and for public health.
Further, Pesikoff versus Secretary of Labor. And that’s

1974 case; D.C. Circuit, 1974 case. The Court found that holding that putative employer had
standing to seek APA review of denial of labor certification for alien.
So here in Pesikoff — and it’s Pesikoff versus Secretary of

Labor, 501 F.2d 757, 760-61, District of Columbia Circuit, 1974.

Again, standing and possible grievance is minor. It’s an employer who wants to hire somebody as an
illegal alien is challenging immigration policies, and the Court has found standing.
Further, in ’83 case, it’s — I’m sorry. It’s a 1996 case,

Federation for American Immigration Reform, Incorporated versus Reno, 93 F, as in Frank, 3.d 897,
900, D.C. Circuit 1996. The Court noted that plaintiff’s theory of injury was that the rush of
immigrants resulting from the Mariel boatlift adversely affects the welfare of the Federation’s
members by generating unemployment and wage reductions by placing burdens on public services such
as hospitals and schools, especially in Miami area.
So here is another case where the government has found that

individuals had standing to challenge the immigration policies because those policies potentially,
potentially will affect the welfare of the public, meaning hospitals and schools and wages.

31

 
In my case, this is a much stronger standing because those are specific individuals who are coming
to my office, and that affects my well-being.
THE COURT: Dr. Taitz, let me ask you this. Can’t you

just not treat them? Can’t you just say: I’m not going to treat any of these people under this
program that come from El Salvador or Guatemala or Honduras or wherever the federal government is
shipping them in from?
DR. TAITZ: Well, Your Honor, then it will be economic

standing. One way or another, I will have standing because I would be forced to stop my
occupation. And there will be definitely economic standing because I will lose big part of my
livelihood because I do see a lot of patients. And all I’m asking for —
THE COURT: You could see some other patients.

DR. TAITZ: I see some other patients. However, the contract — typically government contracts are
large contracts. So I will definitely have economic standing if I would be forced to — to lose —
to lose big part of my livelihood because the government is not disclosing the fact that
individuals have infectious diseases and because the government is not holding those individuals in
quarantine. As a matter of fact,
Department of Health and Human Services is claiming that they hold individuals in quarantine.
However, this is not being done. And further on in the case, I will be happy to provide

32

 
further information, but I provided sufficient information just for the purpose of standing.
Moreover, in Northwest Forest Workers Association, 688 F —

and it’s the case from ’93. The Court has — holding was 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. And assuming, without
deciding, that a nonprofit immigration group’s alleged economic injury stemming from Mariel
boatlift suffices for purposes of constitutional standing.
So this is a case that clearly states here the Northwest

Forest Workers Association did not plead any specific damages. They just stated that the fact that
the government is expanding guest worker program will affect members of nonprofit economic,
environmental and demographic effects. So this is a very generalized case, and the government has
found standing.
So based on all of those standings, I have pled sufficient

facts for cognizable legal Article III standing. Whether ultimately I will win or not, we don’t
know, but I believe that I have pled sufficient for standing.
Moreover, I have noticed that the government — here’s

another case. This is not actually an immigration case, but

it’s Shaw v Reno, 509 U.S. 630, comma, 651, 1993. And again, in this case the government found
standing where — they stated,

33

 
“Extending standing to all federal taxpayers in a case concerning whether a federal spending
program violated establishment clause.”
Akins. Akins, 524 U.S. case. It was a case where a few people were challenging FEC classification
of AIPAC, claiming something very minor, that American Israel Public Affairs Committee should be
called American Israel Public Action Committee because — and if they’re being renamed by FEC,
there will be more information to the public.
And the Court in Akins has found — and I guess it’s in that treatise. The Court in Akins found
that plaintiffs had
standing. And what was their injury? All that we’re looking for is for the right to know about
specific FEC filing of a specific organization. Also —
THE COURT: Let me stop you here.

DR. TAITZ: Yeah.

THE COURT: Let me ask, Mr. Kisor, do you want to

respond to her general response to your motion to dismiss for no standing? If not, there’s some —
I want to move in a different direction.
MR. KISOR: No, Your Honor. Although I would add only

two very minor points very briefly. The cases cited by

Dr. Taitz, at least from my understanding of the facts recited, sound to me like APA cases in which
there was an agency action or regulation that was being challenged.

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

  • What if GOP outperforms latest polls? New election forecast unveiled

• 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

  
  

• October 2026

  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