If you go to Rancho Santa Margarita lawyer/dentist/real estate saleslady/wind-up doll Orly Taitz's OrlyTaitzEsq.com website and type "Hanen" in the search, you'll read all kinds of headlines that seem to indicate a federal judge in Texas is ruling for her lawsuit seeking to stop the transfer of undocumented immigrants between states or, at least, deport or quarantine them for two months to halt the spread of scabies, tuberculosis, measles, whooping cough, swine flu, dengue fever, the Ebola virus and lice. Taitz also alleges President Obama and members of his administration are guilty of racketeering and defamation of her character. But one headline you won't find of her quasi-fundraising site is one reporting the latest out of Texas, where Brownsville-based Judge Andrew S. Hanen, famously blocked Obama administration orders on immigration in a case unrelated to Taitz's (despite her best efforts to merge the suits). No, Hanen's most recent ruling certainly is no win for the Queen of the Birfers,
As first reported by Emma Perez-Treviño, who has covered the case tirelessly for the Valley Morning Star, Hanen just dismissed nearly all claims brought by Taitz, finding Obama and the other defendants--Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell and the U.S. Border Patrol, Rio Grande Valley Sector--are immune from monetary damages as well as her claims of racketeering and defamation of character.
First and foremost, Hanen found Taitz does not have standing "to pursue her claim that she faces the threat of exposure to increased crime or terrorism because defendants failed to check undocumented immigrants' criminal records before releasing them or because the government's policies are serving to entice aliens to come across the border illegally."
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
The judge's 35-page memorandum opinion includes a bit where he points out Taitz is pursuing her delusion (my word) in the wrong place: "The establishment of public policy, including public health policy, is not within the bailiwick of the judicial branch.
"Public policy is debated and decided in the halls of the Capitol and the offices of the White House. As long as that policy is legal, not contrary to existing law, and has otherwise been legally enacted, courts do not have the power to alter it. The Supreme Court has on more than one occasion found it necessary to make just this point."
Has anyone accused Taitz of being a trial lawyer trying to change the laws of the land through the court system. Oh, wait, a Texas federal judge just did.