Main Menu

Mississippi Taitz

Picture of Mississippi Supreme CourtOrly Taitz has filed a ballot challenge in Mississippi, and the Supreme Court of Mississippi today has found it proper, citing Mississippi Code Annotated  (2011) Section 23-15-961, and has appointed a special judge to deal with it. The Honorable R. Kenneth Coleman, Senior Status Judge will preside over the matter. The parties named in the suit are the Democrat [sic] Party of Mississippi and the Secretary of State of Mississippi.

Taitz reports that the Party Executive Committee received her petition on January 23. The Democratic Primary is March 13.

Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-961

§ 23-15-961. Exclusive procedures for contesting qualifications of candidate for primary election; exceptions
(1) Any person desiring to contest the qualifications of another person as a candidate for nomination in a political party primary election shall file a petition specifically setting forth the grounds of the challenge within ten (10) days after the qualifying deadline for the office in question. Such petition shall be filed with the executive committee with whom the candidate in question qualified.
(2) Within ten (10) days of receipt of the petition described above, the appropriate executive committee shall meet and rule upon the petition. At least two (2) days before the hearing to consider the petition, the appropriate executive committee shall give notice to both the petitioner and the contested candidate of the time and place of the hearing on the petition. Each party shall be given an opportunity to be heard at such meeting and present evidence in support of his position.
(3) If the appropriate executive committee fails to rule upon the petition within the time required above, such inaction shall be interpreted as a denial of the request for relief contained in the petition.
(4) Any party aggrieved by the action or inaction of the appropriate executive committee may file a petition for judicial review to the circuit court of the county in which the executive committee whose decision is being reviewed sits. Such petition must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days after the date the petition was originally filed with the appropriate executive committee. Such person filing for judicial review shall give a cost bond in the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($ 300.00) with two (2) or more sufficient sureties conditioned to pay all costs in case his petition be dismissed, and an additional bond may be required, by the court, if necessary, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings.
(5) Upon the filing of the petition and bond, the circuit clerk shall immediately, by registered letter or by telegraph or by telephone, or personally, notify the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or in his absence, or disability, some other judge of the Supreme Court, who shall forthwith designate and notify from the list provided in Section 23-15-951 a circuit judge or chancellor of a district other than that which embraces the district, subdistrict, county or any of the counties, involved in the contest or complaint, to proceed to the county in which the contest or complaint has been filed to hear and determine the contest or complaint. It shall be the official duty of the circuit judge or chancellor to proceed to the discharge of the designated duty at the earliest possible date to be fixed by the judge or chancellor and of which the contestant and contestee shall have reasonable notice. The contestant and contestee are to be served in a reasonable manner as the judge or chancellor may direct, in response to which notice the contestee shall promptly file his answer, and also his cross-complaint if he has a cross-complaint. The hearing before the circuit court shall be de novo. The matter shall be tried to the circuit judge, without a jury. After hearing the evidence, the circuit judge shall determine whether the candidate whose qualifications have been challenged is legally qualified to have his name placed upon the ballot in question. The circuit judge may, upon disqualification of any such candidate, order that such candidate shall bear the court costs of the proceedings.
(6) Within three (3) days after judgment is rendered by the circuit court, the contestant or contestee, or both, may file an appeal in the Supreme Court upon giving a cost bond in the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($ 300.00), together with a bill of exceptions which shall state the point or points of law at issue with a sufficient synopsis of the facts to fully disclose the bearing and relevancy of such points of law. The bill of exceptions shall be signed by the trial judge, or in case of his absence, refusal or disability, by two (2) disinterested attorneys, as is provided by law in other cases of bills of exception. The filing of such appeals shall automatically suspend the decision of the circuit court and the appropriate executive committee is entitled to proceed based upon their decision unless and until the Supreme Court, in its discretion, stays further proceedings in the matter. The appeal shall be immediately docketed in the Supreme Court and referred to the court en banc upon briefs without oral argument unless the court shall call for oral argument, and shall be decided at the earliest possible date, as a preference case over all others. The Supreme Court shall have the authority to grant such relief as is appropriate under the circumstances.
(7) The procedure set forth above shall be the sole and only manner in which the qualifications of a candidate seeking public office as a party nominee may be challenged prior to the time of his nomination or election. After a party nominee has been elected to public office, the election may be challenged as otherwise provided by law. After a party nominee assumes an elective office, his qualifications to hold that office may be contested as otherwise provided by law.

, , ,

30 Responses to Mississippi Taitz

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2012 at 9:04 pm #

    Back in college we had a magazine from Russia before the Great War and we language students tried to translate the jokes. This story of Orly Taitz’s getting a filing right in Mississippi reminds me of a Russian joke I translated that goes like this in English:

    Math teacher: Ivan, did you solve that set of equations by yourself?
    Ivan: Yes teacher, with two unknowns.

    I was especially proud of my translation of the Russian humorous riddle that literally asked “What is the difference between water and twins?” In order to make it funny in English, I had to render it, “What is the difference between oxygen and twins?”

    Today, with our improved understanding of chemistry, one might make the Russian version of the joke use hydrogen instead of water. But again with modern medical practice, the whole premise of the joke is more unlikely.

  2. avatar
    John Potter February 17, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    Thanks for not calling this Mississippi Birfer Queen or some such!

    So Orly’s petition is at step 2 in the above procedure? Heading to a hearing in front of a committee? Interesting that they can deny the petition by simply doing nothing. Thankfully the process is neatly spelled out, all the way up to the MS SC.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2012 at 10:43 pm #

    I should have made that clear in the article. The petition was received by the Party Executive Committee on January 23. Ten days would have been up on January 2. The action by the Supreme Court indicates that they are now at step 5.

    John Potter: So Orly’s petition is at step 2 in the above procedure? Heading to a hearing in front of a committee? Interesting that they can deny the petition by simply doing nothing. Thankfully the process is neatly spelled out, all the way up to the MS SC.

  4. avatar
    John Reilly February 17, 2012 at 10:54 pm #

    According to a poster ast Dr. Taitz’s site, Judge Coleman is …

    wait for it

    wait for it

    wait for it

    OK

    Ready?

    Black.

    Disclaimer: No warranty of accuracy of anything from a commenter there. Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited.

  5. avatar
    wild bill February 17, 2012 at 10:57 pm #

    I wonder what poor old retired Judge Coleman did to earn the wrath of Justice Dickenson?

  6. avatar
    jbjd February 17, 2012 at 11:13 pm #

    The MS law you cite, which Orly asserted provides the legal basis for her cause of action, applies only to a challenge with respect to the eligibility of those party candidates chosen to appear on the general election ballot as the result of the primary election process, but not for those party candidates chosen as the result of a nominating convention. (Technically, insofar as people ‘vote’ for the Presidential nominee wannabe on the primary ballot; these votes are apportioned to delegates who vote at the party Presidential nominating convention.)

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2012 at 11:26 pm #

    Actually I copied the citation from the order by the presiding judge of the Mississippi Supreme Court.

    jbjd: The MS law you cite, which Orly asserted provides the legal basis for her cause of action,

  8. avatar
    John Potter February 17, 2012 at 11:41 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Ten days would have been up on January 2. The action by the Supreme Court indicates that they are now at step 5.

    February 2 🙂 Thanks, Doc! I was thinking a judge sounded like heavy guns for an exec committee, but it doesn’t specify who’s on first. Good to hear it’s moving right along to the fail.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2012 at 11:48 pm #

    I couldn’t find anything on the Internet as to the judge’s race.

    John Reilly: Disclaimer: No warranty of accuracy of anything from a commenter there. Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited.

  10. avatar
    jbjd February 18, 2012 at 12:06 am #

    Ah, yes, your article cited only to the citation in the judge’s order, referring to the section of the law directing Complainants’ options in case of delayed responses of the state party executive committee, to charges lodged under another section of the election laws.

    My point was only to remind readers, Orly used the wrong law in the first place. And, in all of the comments I have read here and elsewhere concerning Orly’s MS filing, even those which have dissected the sections she cited; I haven’t seen the criticism that, again, she used the wrong law.

    BTW, I have come to rely on the Scribd documents provided by Jack Ryan, whose work I first discovered here, as my one-stop-shopping for documents submitted in these various ballot challenges. (I linked to him on my articles on GA.)

  11. avatar
    Majority Will February 18, 2012 at 12:11 am #

    John Potter: Thanks for not calling this Mississippi Birfer Queen or some such!

    And a Mountain of evidence? If you know what I mean.

  12. avatar
    Majority Will February 18, 2012 at 12:24 am #

    John Reilly:
    According to a poster ast Dr. Taitz’s site, Judge Coleman is …

    wait for it

    wait for it

    wait for it

    OK

    Ready?

    Black.

    Disclaimer:No warranty of accuracy of anything from a commenter there.Your mileage may vary.Void where prohibited.

    ر. كينيث كول…ان is R. Kenneth Coleman in Arabic.

    Fly, monkeys! Fly!

  13. avatar
    misha February 18, 2012 at 2:58 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: This story of Orly Taitz’s getting a filing right in Mississippi reminds me of a Russian joke

    Yakov Smirnoff, who I am proud to say is Jewish, used to say this before the USSR broke up:

    I walked into a hotel lobby. I had reservations, but I stayed there anyway.

  14. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 18, 2012 at 9:20 am #

    misha: Yakov Smirnoff, who I am proud to say is Jewish, used to say this before the USSR broke up:

    I walked into a hotel lobby. I had reservations, but I stayed there anyway.

    In a room on the thirteenth floor? Did you meet Orly there?

    [Hint: an urban legend, that might have been true, said that no normal guest got a room on the thirteenth floor in the USSR, and that was not because 13 is an unlucky number)

  15. avatar
    US Citizen February 18, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    I’ve seen Yakov Smirnoff live in Hollywood in the 80’s.
    Funny guy.

    Here’s my question: Does Orly actually take in enough donations to cover her airfare, car rentals and accommodations? Does she still practice dentistry?
    I can’t figure out how she pays for all of this, including sanctions. When she’s advertised donations, they’ve usually been in the $50-100 range.
    How does this albatross stay afloat?
    2nd, 3rd mortgage?

  16. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 18, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    Doc, I’m not sure what you mean when you write that the Mississippi Supreme Court has “found it proper.” The assignment of the case to a Special Judge signifies nothing about the merits of the complaint or even whether it is procedurally correct.

    The Mississippi circuit courts have a considerable backlog of cases, due partially to the massive tort litigation cases brought there because juries are perceived as pro-plaintiff, and partly because the courts were inundated with suits against insurance companies who denied their insureds’ casualty claims in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. As a consequence, the state’s supreme court has had to recall judges from retirement — they are referred to “Special Judges.” Random assignments are made on a rotation of these judges to serve on an emergency basis in a circuit or chancery court where the regular judges are unavailable. See Code of Mississippi Sec. 9-1-105.

    This case was filed in the Seventh Circuit Court of Hinds County which, only four years ago, had a backlog of 4,000 criminal cases. Under the Constitution an accused has a right to speedy trial, thus criminal cases take priority over civil cases. The special appointments are intended to give Hinds County Circuit Court’s four elected circuit judges more time to devote to their criminal and civil dockets.

  17. avatar
    Northland10 February 18, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

    John Reilly:
    According to a poster ast Dr. Taitz’s site, Judge Coleman is …

    wait for it…

    OK

    Ready?

    Black.

    Disclaimer:No warranty of accuracy of anything from a commenter there.Your mileage may vary.Void where prohibited.

    I have noticed she is trying to get more information about the judge (apparently unwilling to read his rulings personally… as in the ones I found in about 5 seconds). Oddly, the birthers seem obsessed about wanted a “republican” and white judge, yet, she has not done very well with the Republican appointed judges in the past (Land and Lamberth come to mind).

  18. avatar
    G February 18, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

    Her husband is a multi-millionaire.

    US Citizen: How does this albatross stay afloat?
    2nd, 3rd mortgage?

  19. avatar
    John Potter February 18, 2012 at 3:51 pm #

    G:
    Her husband is a multi-millionaire.

    Her first american victim? She my not literally be a vampire, but she’s drinking blood all the same.

  20. avatar
    US Citizen February 18, 2012 at 5:43 pm #

    I know hubby’s rich, but have a hard time imagining him knowingly paying for all of this.

    Then again I have a hard time imagining being married to her too, so anything’s possible.
    Perhaps she tells him the money is for dental equipment.

  21. avatar
    G February 18, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

    Well, I’m sure she makes enough from her dental practice to use that money for her own needs. They could easily run all of their regular life expenses via just his net worth alone. From some of the reports on her expensive dining habits and shopping habits I’ve heard over the years, I seriously doubt that all of her expenses on Birtherism even come anywhere close to the amounts she casusally p*sses away on a regular basis…

    All speculation of course. The main point here is that for all her ‘Birfin, even if she did it all OOP and not with help from her Paypal clicking Flying Monkeys, it would probably only amount to a pocket change expense in her household and barely merit much notice…

    US Citizen: I know hubby’s rich, but have a hard time imagining him knowingly paying for all of this.Then again I have a hard time imagining being married to her too, so anything’s possible.Perhaps she tells him the money is for dental equipment.

  22. avatar
    misha February 18, 2012 at 6:57 pm #

    John Potter: She my not literally be a vampire, but she’s drinking blood all the same.

    Here’s an article about Orly’s Romanian boyfriend: http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i9982

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 18, 2012 at 9:59 pm #

    The order from the Mississippi Supreme Court stated:

    “the Court having considered the request and found it proper under Mississippi Code Section …”

    You’ll have to ask Presiding Judge Dickinson what he meant.

    GeorgetownJD: Doc, I’m not sure what you mean when you write that the Mississippi Supreme Court has “found it proper.”

  24. avatar
    jbjd February 18, 2012 at 10:24 pm #

    The specific language in the Order in the MS ballot challenge case only acknowledges; having failed to receive a positive response to the ballot challenge she filed with the state executive committee of the MS D party; following the process prescribed by law, Orly filed a request for relief with the circuit court which, following the process prescribed by law, petitioned the state supreme court to appoint a special judge to hear her complaint.

    Miss. Code Ann. 23-15-961
    MISSISSIPPI CODE of 1972
    *** Current through the 2011 Regular Session and 1st Extraordinary Session ***
    TITLE 23. ELECTIONS
    CHAPTER 15. MISSISSIPPI ELECTION CODE
    ARTICLE 29. ELECTION CONTESTS
    D. CONTESTS OF QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES
    Miss. Code Ann. 23-15-961 (2011)

    23-15-961. Exclusive procedures for contesting qualifications of candidate for primary election; exceptions

    (1) Any person desiring to contest the qualifications of another person as a candidate for nomination in a political party primary election shall file a petition specifically setting forth the grounds of the challenge within ten (10) days after the qualifying deadline for the office in question. Such petition shall be filed with the executive committee with whom the candidate in question qualified.

    (2) Within ten (10) days of receipt of the petition described above, the appropriate executive committee shall meet and rule upon the petition. At least two (2) days before the hearing to consider the petition, the appropriate executive committee shall give notice to both the petitioner and the contested candidate of the time and place of the hearing on the petition. Each party shall be given an opportunity to be heard at such meeting and present evidence in support of his position.

    (3) If the appropriate executive committee fails to rule upon the petition within the time required above, such inaction shall be interpreted as a denial of the request for relief contained in the petition.

    (4) Any party aggrieved by the action or inaction of the appropriate executive committee may file a petition for judicial review to the circuit court of the county in which the executive committee whose decision is being reviewed sits. Such petition must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days after the date the petition was originally filed with the appropriate executive committee. Such person filing for judicial review shall give a cost bond in the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($ 300.00) with two (2) or more sufficient sureties conditioned to pay all costs in case his petition be dismissed, and an additional bond may be required, by the court, if necessary, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings.

    (5) Upon the filing of the petition and bond, the circuit clerk shall immediately, by registered letter or by telegraph or by telephone, or personally, notify the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or in his absence, or disability, some other judge of the Supreme Court, who shall forthwith designate and notify from the list provided in Section 23-15-951 a circuit judge or chancellor of a district other than that which embraces the district, subdistrict, county or any of the counties, involved in the contest or complaint, to proceed to the county in which the contest or complaint has been filed to hear and determine the contest or complaint. It shall be the official duty of the circuit judge or chancellor to proceed to the discharge of the designated duty at the earliest possible date to be fixed by the judge or chancellor and of which the contestant and contestee shall have reasonable notice. The contestant and contestee are to be served in a reasonable manner as the judge or chancellor may direct, in response to which notice the contestee shall promptly file his answer, and also his cross-complaint if he has a cross-complaint. The hearing before the circuit court shall be de novo. The matter shall be tried to the circuit judge, without a jury. After hearing the evidence, the circuit judge shall determine whether the candidate whose qualifications have been challenged is legally qualified to have his name placed upon the ballot in question. The circuit judge may, upon disqualification of any such candidate, order that such candidate shall bear the court costs of the proceedings.

    (6) Within three (3) days after judgment is rendered by the circuit court, the contestant or contestee, or both, may file an appeal in the Supreme Court upon giving a cost bond in the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($ 300.00), together with a bill of exceptions which shall state the point or points of law at issue with a sufficient synopsis of the facts to fully disclose the bearing and relevancy of such points of law. The bill of exceptions shall be signed by the trial judge, or in case of his absence, refusal or disability, by two (2) disinterested attorneys, as is provided by law in other cases of bills of exception. The filing of such appeals shall automatically suspend the decision of the circuit court and the appropriate executive committee is entitled to proceed based upon their decision unless and until the Supreme Court, in its discretion, stays further proceedings in the matter. The appeal shall be immediately docketed in the Supreme Court and referred to the court en banc upon briefs without oral argument unless the court shall call for oral argument, and shall be decided at the earliest possible date, as a preference case over all others. The Supreme Court shall have the authority to grant such relief as is appropriate under the circumstances.

    (7) The procedure set forth above shall be the sole and only manner in which the qualifications of a candidate seeking public office as a party nominee may be challenged prior to the time of his nomination or election. After a party nominee has been elected to public office, the election may be challenged as otherwise provided by law. After a party nominee assumes an elective office, his qualifications to hold that office may be contested as otherwise provided by law.

    HISTORY: SOURCES: Derived from 1942 Code 3151 [Codes, Hemingway’s 1917, 6431; 1930, 5904; Laws, 1916, ch. 161; repealed by Laws, 1970, ch. 506, 33 and 1986, ch. 495, 346]; en, Laws, 1988, ch. 577, 1; Laws, 1990, ch. 307, 1; Laws, 1999, ch. 301, 14, eff from and after January 15, 1999 (the date the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section.)

    Miss. Code Ann. 23-15-961

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 18, 2012 at 10:26 pm #

    Sure, it was proper according to procedure. I never meant to imply that it was proper in terms of facts and conclusions. This is Orly, after all.

    jbjd: The specific language in the Order in the MS ballot challenge case only acknowledges;

  26. avatar
    jbjd February 18, 2012 at 10:54 pm #

    Yes; of course. And you would never know the order only resulted from following the procedure spelled out in law, if your only frame of reference had been Orly’s announcement, “OMG!” (Rather, she should announce, ‘OMG, I followed the law and, by following the law, I achieved the exact result spelled out in law!’ (Maybe, that’s what she was thinking when she made the announcement.))

    I appreciate that, in an earlier posting, you acknowledged, by (representing the Complainant) filing a ballot challenge in GA; for once, Orly was ‘going about it the right way.’ Because that’s what I advised people to do, in 2008, before the D Presidential nominating convention. That is, if you believe Barack Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to be President; then, the way to keep him out of the WH is to keep his name off the ballot but only in those states which require candidate eligibility to be on the ballot; and allow such challenges. Seems that most people stopped listening after the but.

  27. avatar
    G February 19, 2012 at 2:14 am #

    Birthers (and Orly in particular) have demonstrated repeated difficulty in listening – period….

    jbjd: Because that’s what I advised people to do, in 2008, before the D Presidential nominating convention. That is, if you believe Barack Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to be President; then, the way to keep him out of the WH is to keep his name off the ballot but only in those states which require candidate eligibility to be on the ballot; and allow such challenges. Seems that most people stopped listening after the but.

  28. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 19, 2012 at 8:02 am #

    It sounds like the “request” that is referred to was a request by the Circuit Court. Under the statute for special assignments, the court’s notice that none of the regular judges could give the case timely consideration before the election would make the request “proper.”

  29. avatar
    bob j February 19, 2012 at 8:15 am #

    The comments on Dr. Taitz’s site are comedic gold ( of course, not intended to be so.), but this is a gem from the good Dr. herself:

    orly taitz
    February 18th, 2012 @ 6:13 am

    how do you know, that the judge is black? did you see his pictures?

    30.orly taitz
    February 18th, 2012 @ 6:15 am

    how do you know, that he is black, did you see any pictures of the judge?

    My question:

    If the website is yours; how can you double post?

  30. avatar
    Majority Will February 19, 2012 at 9:43 am #

    bob j:
    The comments on Dr. Taitz’s site are comedic gold ( of course, not intended to be so.), but this is a gem from the good Dr. herself:

    orly taitzFebruary 18th, 2012 @ 6:13 am

    how do you know, that the judge is black? did you see his pictures?

    30.orly taitzFebruary 18th, 2012 @ 6:15 am

    how do you know, that he is black, did you see any pictures of the judge?

    My question:

    If the website is yours; how can you double post?

    Peroxide causes brain damage?