Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Liberi v. Taitz| 105 ORDER Denying Emerg TRO Pending Appeal (2009-08-25)

Liberi v. Taitz| 105 ORDER Denying Emerg TRO Pending Appeal (2009-08-25)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 19|Likes:
Published by tesibria
Liberi et al v. Taitz et al
CASE #: 2:09-cv-01898-ER
United States District Court - Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Honerable Eduardo C. Robreno
Liberi et al v. Taitz et al
CASE #: 2:09-cv-01898-ER
United States District Court - Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Honerable Eduardo C. Robreno

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: tesibria on Aug 26, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/11/2014

pdf

text

original

 
This litigation involves an intramural dispute among
1
persons who have, at times jointly, challenged the legitimacy ofPresident Barack Obama’s presidency based on their belief thatPresident Obama is not a natural born citizen. The instant caseis just one piece of this far flung litigation, which is nowpending in at least three federal courts.As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffsfiled the instant motion without first seeking leave of theCourt, in violation of the Court’s explicit order, dated June 25,2009 (doc. no. 78). Although Plaintiffs assert that, pursuant toRule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, their filingis proper, the Court disagrees.Still, the Court has reviewed the merits of Plaintiffs’motion. The issues raised by Plaintiffs were previouslyconsidered by the Court during two lengthy hearings, at which allparties were afforded an opportunity to be heard. At theconclusion of the most recent hearing on August 7, 2009, theCourt was left with the distinct impression that Plaintiffs werenot entitled to the extraordinary relief that they had requested.Specifically, Plaintiffs did not made a threshold showing of areasonable likelihood of success on the merits, or of irreparableharm. Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs’ motion for aninjunction or restraining order pending the outcome ofIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIALISA LIBERI et al., :CIVIL ACTION:NO. 09-1898Plaintiffs,::v.::ORLY TAITZ et al.,::Defendants.:
O R D E R  AND NOW,
this
25th
day of
 August, 2009,
it is hereby
ORDERED
that Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for an injunction orrestraining order pending the outcome of Plaintiffs’ appeal (doc.no. 102) is
DENIED
.
1

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->