OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
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

the states oppose the stay asked by Obama

Posted on | February 23, 2015 | 2 Comments

Texas v US Motion for stay pending appeal

Texas v US opposition to request of 3 day ruling

February 23, 2015 Via CM/ECF The Honorable Andrew S. Hanen 600 East Harrison Street, #101 Brownsville, Texas 78520 Re: Texas v. United States, No. 1:14-cv-254 (S.D. Tex.) Dear Judge Hanen: The Plaintiff States write to oppose Defendants’ request for expedited consideration of their motion filed today to stay the Court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal. See Dkt. No. 150 at 7. As this Court found, Defendants have no emergency need to take applications for benefits under the new program. Mem. Op. & Order (Dkt. No. 145) at 118-21. Defendants have implicitly recognized as much, by waiting a full week from the preliminary injunction to file this stay motion. Indeed, if Defendants had any compelling claim of a looming, irreversible harm from temporary injunctive relief, they would have featured it previously. They had ample time to do so: Plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction on December 4, some six weeks before this Court’s January 15 motion hearing. Defendants are not enjoined from setting enforcement priorities and marshaling their assets. Id. at 123. Rather, Defendants simply take issue with this Court’s conclusions, such as: • the Plaintiff States “have clearly proven a likelihood of success on the merits”; • “there will be no effective way of putting the toothpaste back in the tube” if Defendants’ program is not enjoined until a final resolution of its lawfulness; • “any injury to Defendants, even if DAPA is ultimately found lawful, will be insubstantial in comparison to Plaintiffs’ injuries” should the program take effect; • temporarily enjoining Defendants’ program will “merely preserve the status quo that has always existed”; and • “[i]f the circumstances underlying this case do not qualify for preliminary relief to preserve the status quo, this Court finds it hard to imagine what case would.” Id. at 112, 116, 117, 120, 121. Defendants’ desire to relitigate these issues does not justify a deviation from the Court’s normal briefing schedule, which would allow Plaintiffs 20 days to respond. Court Civ. Proc. 6(C). At the very least, Plaintiffs should be allowed to respond within the same seven days that Defendants enjoyed to prepare their motion after the preliminary injunction issued. It is unreasonable to demand that Plaintiffs respond, and the Court rule on the motion, in under three days. Sincerely, /s/ Angela V. Colmenero ANGELA V. COLMENERO Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Plaintiffs cc: All counsel of record via CM/ECF C

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

2 Responses to “the states oppose the stay asked by Obama”

  1. Donna
    February 23rd, 2015 @ 1:18 pm

    The illegals will get social security numbers and drivers licenses —- the requirements to vote. IF this is allowed to continue—- there will be no more valid elections. The GOP will be done.

  2. RacerJim
    February 24th, 2015 @ 8:23 am

    Donna is absolutely correct.

    Here in the sanctuary State of Maryland illegals can already get Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers and drivers licenses, and Democrats want to give them voting rights as well — including 16 year olds.

Leave a Reply