Main Menu

Mississippi judge bails

Orly Taitz demanded a new judge in her ballot challenge lawsuit against a growing number of defendants in Mississippi. The judge, R. Kenneth Coleman, says OK, and recused himself. A simple ballot challenge has transmogrified into a civil RICO action.

Since the primary election is over, Taitz forfeited her priority consideration. Appointing a new judge means further delay, and who knows what the addition of the civil RICO cause of action does to the mix. Since Taitz filed an amended complaint, all the motions to dismiss will have to be re-argued, and there are many new defendants. All bets are off as to when the process will resume.

MS 2012-04-20 Taitz v. Democratic Party. Coleman recuses

, , ,

67 Responses to Mississippi judge bails

  1. avatar
    Keith April 22, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

    I caught my irony meter just in time and got it disconnected before it blew.

    Her Orleyness complained that the process was taking too long and ‘demanded’ that the judge recuse himself.

    So he does.

    And now it is going to take much, much longer.

  2. avatar
    Majority Will April 22, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

    What an enormous and disgusting waste of resources.

  3. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 22, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    “Due to recent developments, in the above referenced case, I am going to recuse myself … in this matter” .

    That last part “in this matter” makes the comma between “developments” and “in” completely superfluous.

    Obviously, the Judge has been reading much too much Orly recently.

    This may actually explain why “developments” in the above referenced case have been so utterly flabbergasting. Orly has been bombarding Judge Coleman with e-mails. She must really be thinking that you can get pro hac vice by e-mailing the judge and that you can get a docketed case replaced by another one with literally 120 defendants added – if you just e-mail the judge.

    Just like you can get your case in front of the Supreme Court if you only succeed in dumping 100 pages of birfer prat on one of its members while he is addressing some students.

  4. avatar
    Reality Check April 22, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    In my opinion it is unfair to say that Judge Coleman “bailed”. He is in his 70’s and has health issues. His participation as a special judge is discretionary. He obviously weighed the factors and decided not to continue on this case. Given the known facts we cannot say what factor was paramount in his decision.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 22, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

    I didn’t intend the word to be pejorative.

    Reality Check: In my opinion it is unfair to say that Judge Coleman “bailed”

  6. avatar
    J. Potter April 22, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

    When will the State of Mississippi counter-sue for damages? Why must one state bear the burden of a national farce?

  7. avatar
    BillTheCat April 22, 2012 at 9:42 pm #

    I also feel that there is a good chance she did this on purpose in order to draw things out, despite her protestations of wanting things to move faster. Time will tell, and now she has it.

  8. avatar
    Rickey April 22, 2012 at 10:06 pm #

    Reality Check:
    In my opinion it is unfair to say that Judge Coleman “bailed”. He is in his 70′s and has health issues. His participation as a special judge is discretionary. He obviously weighed the factors and decided not to continue on this case. Given the known facts we cannot say what factor was paramount in his decision.

    My guess is that he conducted some research on Orly and decided that he didn’t need the aggravation.

    As far as I can tell, Orly’s First Amended Complaint still hasn’t been docketed. Note that Judge Coleman’s letter uses the original case caption.

  9. avatar
    Bob April 23, 2012 at 10:25 am #

    I have a feeling that Orly was frightened by the pushback she was getting in Mississippi and am predicting that her interest in these stupid state-by-state ballot challenges will wane. It’s not that she will go away or anything but now there is something of a template for scaring her off.

  10. avatar
    Reality Check April 23, 2012 at 10:53 am #

    I think that “bail” carries a negative connotation whether that was your intent or not. I just wanted to ensure that I understood your intended meaning. 😉

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I didn’t intend the word to be pejorative.

  11. avatar
    Orly Taitz April 23, 2012 at 11:01 am #

    If I would be scared, I would not be filing a RICO case.
    If defendants were so sure in their motions to dismiss, why didn”t they wait for a ruling and dismissal? why both of them filed an answer?
    I raarely go on this site. If you want to answer, you can post a comment on orlytaitzesq.com

  12. avatar
    gorefan April 23, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    Orly Taitz: If I would be scared, I would not be filing a RICO case.

    Shouldn’t that read,

    ‘If I would be smart, I would not be filling a RICO case.’

  13. avatar
    Sef April 23, 2012 at 11:10 am #

    Reality Check:
    In my opinion it is unfair to say that Judge Coleman “bailed”. He is in his 70′s and has health issues. His participation as a special judge is discretionary. He obviously weighed the factors and decided not to continue on this case. Given the known facts we cannot say what factor was paramount in his decision.

    If Judge Coleman’s illness had anything to do with blood pressure I can understand why he would want to recuse himself. His recusal might even have been under doctor’s orders. This case needs a calm, deliberative judge like the one in NJ. I was very impressed.

  14. avatar
    Sef April 23, 2012 at 11:13 am #

    Orly Taitz: If I would be scared, I would not be filing a RICO case.

    Well, since we all know that the RICO has absolutely no chance of going anywhere that is not much of a claim.

  15. avatar
    gorefan April 23, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    Rickey: As far as I can tell, Orly’s First Amended Complaint still hasn’t been docketed. Note that Judge Coleman’s letter uses the original case caption.

    NBC has the full MS docket

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/ms-orly-v-democrat-party-docket/#more-23606

  16. avatar
    Bob April 23, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    Orly,

    I can’t speak for the defendants so I won’t go on your site and risk a malware infection.

    And obviously my comment was just a personal feeling but I appear to have hit a raw nerve. It’s okay to admit being a bit scared to be deposed. Nobody would hold it against you. It’s only normal.

  17. avatar
    Thinker April 23, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

    The defendants filed an answer because it stops Orly from amending her complaint without permission from the court. Since they filed their answers before she filed her amended complaint, I’m sure the defendants will soon submit a motion to strike the RICO complaint and it will be granted.

  18. avatar
    RuhRoh April 23, 2012 at 12:41 pm #

    I don’t think Orly is “scared” to let the case move forward in MS. I think this is simply one more example of her legal ineptitude.

    If she intended to cause further delays, and I doubt she did, she would only have done it to keep the case “alive” longer so that more idiots might hit her PayPal button. I still think that gives her far too much credit though. She doesn’t understand the legal system well enough to play it.

  19. avatar
    BillTheCat April 23, 2012 at 12:54 pm #

    Wow what an honor to have The Taitz visit us here 🙂

    Your “RICO” case is null and void. Won’t even make it to the starting gate. Watch and see.

  20. avatar
    RuhRoh April 23, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    I’m skeptical that the actual Orly posted here. I note a distinct lack of inappropriate commas.

  21. avatar
    realist April 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm #

    Orly Taitz:
    If I would be scared, I would not be filing a RICO case.
    If defendants were so sure in their motions to dismiss, why didn”t they wait for a ruling and dismissal? why both of them filed an answer?
    I raarely go on this site. If you want to answer, you can post a comment on orlytaitzesq.com

    But Orly… you’ve not filed anything remotely close to a RICO action. I know you think you have, but you haven’t.

    Oh, and the rendition of the law you posted on your site relating to when one can begin discovery is not even the law in your own state of CA. Reading that one could get the impression you never studied law. Perhaps Taft didn’t cover procedure.

  22. avatar
    raicha April 23, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    Orly Taitz:
    If I would be scared, I would not be filing a RICO case.
    If defendants were so sure in their motions to dismiss, why didn”t they wait for a ruling and dismissal? why both of them filed an answer?
    I raarely go on this site. If you want to answer, you can post a comment on orlytaitzesq.com

    The answer is in the Mississippi rules of civil procedure, which remain a mystery to Orly Taitz.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

    It’s the real Orly Taitz.

    RuhRoh: I’m skeptical that the actual Orly posted here. I note a distinct lack of inappropriate commas.

  24. avatar
    Jim April 23, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It’s the real Orly Taitz.

    So, how many times has she threaten to sue you doc? Are you trembling in you shoes?

  25. avatar
    JPotter April 23, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

    The screech would make one tremble whether one intended to or not. If an earmuff collection is taken, I’ll chip in. If we round up enough, it’s Bose earphones all around!

    In case of prolonged assault, may need to invest in some white noise generators for key personnel.

  26. avatar
    Thinker April 23, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    Orly is far too stupid to be scared. Narcissists are their own worst enemy, in part because they vastly over-estimate their own abilities.

  27. avatar
    RuhRoh April 23, 2012 at 1:29 pm #

    Didn’t either the Dem Party’s answer or the SOS’s answer include a request for sacntions against Taitz? I think that should answer Orly’s question of why they responded fairly handily.

  28. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 23, 2012 at 1:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It’s the real Orly Taitz.

    Figures. Two sentences sounded like translated Russian. No, I am not going to say why.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

    First, thanks for coming by. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to get tied up with arguments here; I’m sure you have more than enough to do already.

    I wondered the same thing that you asked: “If defendants were so sure in their motions o dismiss, why didn’t they wait for a ruling and dismissal?” I’m obviously not a Mississippi attorney, but it looks to me that the usual practice in Mississippi civil cases is for the defendants to be required to respond within 30 days of a summons. Since Judge Coleman had not ruled on the motions to dismiss, I think the defendants had no choice but to respond or face default. I don’t have access to all of the correspondence, so I can’t say how close to the 30 days the response came.

    Orly Taitz: If I would be scared, I would not be filing a RICO case.
    If defendants were so sure in their motions to dismiss, why didn”t they wait for a ruling and dismissal? why both of them filed an answer?
    I raarely go on this site. If you want to answer, you can post a comment on orlytaitzesq.com

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

    You are not saying why?

    Paul Pieniezny: Two sentences sounded like translated Russian. No, I am not going to say why.

  31. avatar
    jayHG April 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: “Due to recent developments, in the above referenced case, I am going to recuse myself … in this matter” .That last part “in this matter” makes the comma between “developments” and “in” completely superfluous.Obviously, the Judge has been reading much too much Orly recently. This may actually explain why “developments” in the above referenced case have been so utterly flabbergasting. Orly has been bombarding Judge Coleman with e-mails. She must really be thinking that you can get pro hac vice by e-mailing the judge and that you can get a docketed case replaced by another one with literally 120 defendants added – if you just e-mail the judge.Just like you can get your case in front of the Supreme Court if you only succeed in dumping 100 pages of birfer prat on one of its members while he is addressing some students.

    Actually, Orly clearly mental sense of entitlement goes this way: she should win every case while not following any judges’ court rules and also while not being licensed to practice law in that particular state. Also, if she doesn’t win, she thinks that the judge should be arrested and she should be declared to have won after all……and all of this while having no case over which these court have jurisdiction……..

  32. avatar
    Bob April 23, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    I grew up with Russian immigrants for neighbors and I was 99% sure it was really Orly because both of these phrase jumped out at me:

    “If defendants”

    “why both of them”

  33. avatar
    clestes April 23, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    OK guys and gals, sorry to late to the game here, but can someone bring me up to date on what all this means.

    Of course I understand that Orly has a way of complimenting any and all things she touches. Isn’t this about that case in MS where she lost to the empty chair and then challenged the Sec of State to keep Mr. Obama off the ballot and Mr Keene, ( I think) said, forget it. Judge ruled he is eligible and that is it. Barak Obama stays on the ballot.

    So like, what the hell is happening now?

  34. avatar
    JPotter April 23, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You are not saying why?

    Her writing is slightly Yoda-ish. Missing articles, misconjugations. For a laugh, I fed her post to Google Translate to Russian, then re-ran the result back to English. Starting with the original Orly, I got a line about “…. if the accused were so confident in their motions to fire …” … subliminal projection there?

    So, I cleaned up her post to :

    “If I were scared, I would not be filing a RICO case.
    If the defendants were confident in their motions to dismiss, why didn’t they wait for a ruling on their motions? Why did both of them file an answer?
    I rarely visit this site. If you want to answer me, please post a comment on orlytaitzesq.com”

    and got back:

    “If I was scared I would not apply if Rico.
    If the accused were confident in their motions to dismiss, why do not they wait for a decision on their motion? Why are they both answer file?
    I rarely visit this site. If you want to answer me, please write a comment on orlytaitzesq.com”

    Dang, I was hoping for more humorous results. Or, better, to translate English to Russian, Russian to English, and get back perfect Orly! I guess, in Orly’s defense, I must note she is clearer than a canned algorithm.

  35. avatar
    jayHG April 23, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

    Orly Taitz: If I would be scared, I would not be filing a RICO case.If defendants were so sure in their motions to dismiss, why didn”t they wait for a ruling and dismissal? why both of them filed an answer?I raarely go on this site. If you want to answer, you can post a comment on orlytaitzesq.com

    Nobody is going to that malware wasteland you call a website….and as to what you just posted, it’s jibberish….as usual.

  36. avatar
    RuhRoh April 23, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    @clestes:

    I think you are confusing a few seperate Taitz cases.

    The infamous “empty chair” victory occured in her GA ballot challenge. In GA, these challenges are referred by the SOS to an ALJ. The ALJ offers an opinion which the SOS can accept or reject. ALJ Malihi ruled against Taitz and the SOS used that opinion to deny Taitz’s challenge.

    MS is a different case.

    Not sure what you mean by a reference to “Mr. Keene”.

    The MS action is terribly convoluted because Orly has mucked it up. She originally filed a pro se action against the SOS and the MS Democratic Party. Then she filed an amended complaint that added over 100 plaintiffs and several new defendants (some not in MS) to the action, despite the fact that she is not licensed to practice law in MS nor had sought pro hac vice status. She repeatedly emailed the judge assigned to the case and attempted to file motions and pleadings via email (not allowed under MS rules), issued CA subpoenas for a MS case, and ultimately emailed a request for a new judge. The judge assigened, Judge Coleman, decided to voluntarily recuse himself.

    So the case is in limbo until a new judge is assigned.

    If you don’t understand wht the heck is going on, consider that a sign that you are totally sane. 🙂

  37. avatar
    raicha April 23, 2012 at 3:09 pm #

    It’s a little different than that. The Mississippi rules of civil procedure state:

    Rule 12

    (a) …The service of a motion permitted under this rule alters these periods of
    time as follows, unless a different time is fixed by order of the court:

    (1) if the court denies the motion or postpones its disposition until the trial on the
    merits, the responsive pleading shall be served within ten days after notice of the court’s
    action;

    Motions to dismiss were set for April 16th. But on the 11th, the judge notified the parties that he had been ill and he postponed disposition of the motions, Under Rule 12(a)(1), that notice triggered the requirement for the defendants to file an answer within 10 days. The SOS already had answered. The Democratic party immediately filed its own.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    First, thanks for coming by. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to get tied up with arguments here; I’m sure you have more than enough to do already.

    I wondered the same thing that you asked: “If defendants were so sure in their motions o dismiss, why didn’t they wait for a ruling and dismissal?” I’m obviously not a Mississippi attorney, but it looks to me that the usual practice in Mississippi civil cases is for the defendants to be required to respond within 30 days of a summons. Since Judge Coleman had not ruled on the motions to dismiss, I think the defendants had no choice but to respond or face default. I don’t have access to all of the correspondence, so I can’t say how close to the 30 days the response came.

  38. avatar
    nbc April 23, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: Figures. Two sentences sounded like translated Russian. No, I am not going to say why.

    Lack of definite article (there are no definite/indefinite articles in Russian) and the avoidance of the verb ‘did’..

  39. avatar
    Sef April 23, 2012 at 4:01 pm #

    Does the judge’s recusal have to be accepted by the court which appointed him before it is official? IOW, until the SCOMS acts is this still in the same state as before the judge’s letter? I also might have missed the SCOMS’ acceptance of the recusal.

  40. avatar
    BlueDem1 April 23, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

    Wow, Mississippi actually HAS a Democratic Party? Or is Orly fighting against an “empty bench” again? LOL!!

  41. avatar
    clestes April 23, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    RuhRoh Thank you for answering me. You are right, keeping track of Orly is difficult. But what exactly is she suing about?

    I looked up pro se action so I realize she is representing herself in MS, although she has no legal rights in MS, but what for?

  42. avatar
    Plutodog April 23, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    clestes — you’re familiar with “SOS”?

    No, not Save our Ship. No, not Secretary of State. No, not Shit on a Shingle. No, not Abba ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvChjHcABPA ).

    It’s the other SOS.

  43. avatar
    sfjeff April 23, 2012 at 6:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It’s the real Orly Taitz.

    My future Senator from California……

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    Originally, Taitz sought to keep Obama off the Mississippi Presidential Primary ballot. Of course the Mississippi Primary has passed, so Taitz has altered her complaint in two ways:

    1) First she requests that the Court invalidate all the votes for Obama in the Primary, and bar him from being on the general election ballot. The amended complaint adds plaintiffs who Taitz hopes will improve her standing to sue: a Mississippi voter and 3 minority presidential candidates

    2) Taitz has added a civil RICO claim. In civil RICO, a person can collect damages if they are harmed by a continuing criminal enterprise. Taitz says that the Obama Campaign, the head of Social Security Administration and Hawaii officials are a criminal enterprise that has harmed her through harassment and death threats from unnamed individuals, and making fun of her.

    clestes: I looked up pro se action so I realize she is representing herself in MS, although she has no legal rights in MS, but what for?

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    It seems to me that translations to and back are much less funny than they were in the old days.

    JPotter: Dang, I was hoping for more humorous results. Or, better, to translate English to Russian, Russian to English, and get back perfect Orly! I guess, in Orly’s defense, I must note she is clearer than a canned algorithm.

  46. avatar
    realist April 23, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

    “2) Taitz has added a civil RICO claim. In civil RICO, a person can collect damages if they are harmed by a continuing criminal enterprise. Taitz says that the Obama Campaign, the head of Social Security Administration and Hawaii officials are a criminal enterprise …

    She attempts to make such a claim, but she is woefully short in her pleading of doing so.

  47. avatar
    clestes April 23, 2012 at 9:47 pm #

    Plutodog other than Sec of State the only other SOS I can think of is “help’? Is that it?

  48. avatar
    Plutodog April 23, 2012 at 11:13 pm #

    No, clestes — just to save time, I’ll assume you’re serious. SOS — same old sh– (and that’s not shinola).

  49. avatar
    Norbrook April 24, 2012 at 7:51 am #

    Plutodog:
    No, clestes — just to save time, I’ll assume you’re serious.SOS — same old sh– (and that’s not shinola).

    We used to use SSDD – Same (ahem!) Stuff, Different Day. Which is what most birther court case filings turn out to be.

  50. avatar
    bovril April 24, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    Apologies for being on the Mississippi thread but….

    In Indiana news the SoS and Ag are so peeved with MAd Ole Orly they are now going after sanctions………

    H/t to the Fogbow

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/91005705/IN-Taitz-v-IEC-SOS-2012-04-16-IEC-SOS-Motion-for-Sanctions

    Basically, Indiana are going after MOO and company with a vengance, “Incoherent and irrelevant”, “frivolous, unreasonable and groundless”, “an unlawful attempt to circumvent the judicial process”.

    Deputy AG Jeff Garn after contemplating sending a rule 11 letter received a phone call from Bob Kern where he stated he was going to sue Garn for defamation…”Garn realized that no productive conversations regarding the merits of this case could be had between petitioners and counsel….”

    “It is also important to note that Petitioner Taitz has been sanctioned in at least one case wherein she challenged President Obama’s qualifications..”

    Ohhhhhhh I wait for the Banshee howl to hit the East Coast…..

  51. avatar
    clestes April 24, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    Plutodog OK, I think I may be getting a grasp here, but really I find it awfully confusing to even understand what this court case is about.

    Let me sum up what I believe you all are telling me and thank you for helping me through this maze. I tell many of my friends about all this birther stuff and they all think it just hilarious!

    Is she sueing to keep him the president off the MS ballot? I mean, what the hell? That isn’t even reasonable! Now I understand reason and Orly Taitz do not belong in the same sentence, but this goes beyond anything! Now, with the change in judges, the damn case won’t even be heard until AFTER elections? Is that right??

    She was so P.O. at the current judge that she requested a new one and the whole case got pushed back months so it won’t even be heard until AFTER the election in Nov??

    Why is anyone even wasting their time on this? Doesn’t the democratic party of MS have the right to determine who they want on the ballot? They have already decided that the democratic nominee for president in MS will be the president. What is there to sue over??

    Is it because she is still claiming that his BC is invalid?? That has already been decided in over a 100 court cases to be valid. She lost to the empty chair in GA over this and judge Malihi cited in his decision the 1898 Ark case as well as the 2009 Indiana case. I mean, there IS NO LEGAL DOUBT about its validity.

    I know the judge is over 70 and in poor health, but Jesus Christ, the simpliest thing would have been for him to just dismiss this case and be done with it. Now, he has recused himself, and another judge has to be chosen.

    This is beyond stupid, even for MS, one of the stupidest states in the whole damn country. When the new judge gets chosen, and this finally gets on the docket the election will be over!

    What is being accomplished here except wasting MS tax dollars? This extremely stupid, ignorant, immigrant woman has cost this country’s court system so much money in time just responding to her that she should be sanctioned for every penny she has cost in everyone of her court cases, fined on top of that and have her law license removed FOREVER.

    The fact that she is able to do this is making a mockery of our court system through out the whole world. We are suppose to have one of the best court systems worldwide and because of bunch of stupid people who don’t like having a man part African and part Caucasian as president, they are filing case after case after case on absolutely NO EVIDENCE.

    This is wrong. This is NOT what our court system is for. It is past time to get over this Birth Certificate BS and move on!

  52. avatar
    clestes April 24, 2012 at 12:08 pm #

    Dr. C you said

    1) First she requests that the Court invalidate all the votes for Obama in the Primary, and bar him from being on the general election ballot.

    2) Taitz has added a civil RICO claim. In civil RICO, a person can collect damages if they are harmed by a continuing criminal enterprise.

    And she is claiming the Social Security administration, the Obama campaign and some HI officials are threatening her life??

    I am telling you, it has been fun for a few years, but it is past funny anymore. For her to continue on and on as well as other Birthers to continue on and on filing this and that in the courts is WASTING TAX DOLLARS.

    So what does Mitt Romney think of all this? Someone should ask him this question. According to his budget, he wants to cut all social programs so he can fund making wars and his tax cuts and yet thousands and thousands of tax dollars are being wasted on this frivilous sh*t!

  53. avatar
    RuhRoh April 24, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

    @clestes:

    Your basic understanding is correct, yes. Taitz was initially trying to claim that the MS Democratic Party and the Secretary of State had an obligation to prove that Obama was constitutionally eligible to hold the office of POTUS before putting him on the primary ballot. And because it’s Orly Taitz, many irrelevant claims, calumnies and documents were also included. She originally filed pro se to escape the need to apply for pro hac vice. But then she filed the amended complaint, adding several other plaintiffs, at which point she was effectively practicing law without a license in MS. It simply became more convoluted from there.

    No, she would not have won the case. Either the MS Democratic Party or the SoS did seek sanctions against her. (I don’t recall which.)

    Orly worked herself into a paranoid fit and asked for a new judge while in the same breath complaining that her case was not proceeding quickly enough. All she has accomplished is delaying the case, yes. Whether it will be delayed beyond the general election I could not tell you, but it’s certainly been set back a few months.

    The only benefit the delay affords Taitz is that she can keep screaming on her blog and asking for money from her dimwitted supporters.

  54. avatar
    clestes April 24, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    Well, about effing time! Indiana officials are starting the process of filing sanctions against this screwup, who should have been disbarred by CA years ago. If this goes through and other states start following suit, maybe we will see the end of the birther age. Certainly after the president is re-elected it is to be hoped it stops.

    Just for some humor yesterday Boner gave the repubs a 1 in 3 chance of losing the house to the dems. I think he really meant a 1 in 3 chance of KEEPING the house.

    After the hell of the last 18 months he has had to endure, because of the Tea Party, he should thinking of retiring. Frankly the man looks like he has not slept in a month. AND Mitch McConnell has signaled that he intends to give Boner no support in any TP issue for the rest of this congress. McConnell knows damn well if he does, he will definately lose whatever chance he has of taking the senate.

    Americans are damn tired of the Baggers, Birthers, wingers and I think a great many will be voted out of office in Nov.

  55. avatar
    Rickey April 24, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    gorefan: NBC has the full MS docket

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/ms-orly-v-democrat-party-docket/#more-23606

    Thanks. I see now that Orly filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint concurrently with her Amended Complaint. However, it doesn’t appear that Judge Coleman made a ruling on her Motion, and of course she cannot represent the new plaintiffs and Orly she has not served any of the new defendants. I assume that she cannot serve any of the new defendants unless and until the Court grants her request to file the Amended Complaint.

  56. avatar
    clestes April 24, 2012 at 12:34 pm #

    RuhRoh you said Either the MS Democratic Party or the SoS did seek sanctions against her. (I don’t recall which.)

    Since there is a new judge none of this has been heard right? It is still possible she will be sanctioned?

  57. avatar
    RuhRoh April 24, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

    clestes: RuhRoh you said Either the MS Democratic Party or the SoS did seek sanctions against her. (I don’t recall which.)Since there is a new judge none of this has been heard right? It is still possible she will be sanctioned?

    Right.

    And I sure hope so!

  58. avatar
    nbc April 24, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    The AG now has filed a notice that the case has been moved to federal court ROTFL..

    RICO and Constitutional question of eligibility.

    Hilarious…

  59. avatar
    RetiredLawyer April 24, 2012 at 3:51 pm #

    Amazing. I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen an AG file to remove a case that *could* be heard in state court. Either he feels that every sane senior judge is going to decline the case, or he feels that Orley is going to get even less traction in a Federal court. Or, possibly, he believes that Orley will not be able to get pro hac vice in Federal court and that ends it right there.

  60. avatar
    Linda April 24, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

    RetiredLawyer: Or, possibly, he believes that Orley will not be able to get pro hac vice in Federal court and that ends it right there.

    Fingers crossed!

  61. avatar
    bovril April 24, 2012 at 4:37 pm #

    IIRC and IANAL

    Loss in one Federal court means loss in ALL federal courts (for the same type of case)…no more peripatetic Orly state and judge shopping equivalent at the federal level

  62. avatar
    RuhRoh April 24, 2012 at 5:39 pm #

    Orly gave this interview Fri or Sat night. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtXgBSeLQLY At about the 1:12 minute mark, she tells the reporter that another judge has recused himself because her cases are clearly legitmate and they are feeling the pressure! She actually thinks she is winning. She almost giggles about it. She is utterly delusional.

  63. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 25, 2012 at 10:32 am #

    bovril:
    IIRC and IANAL

    Loss in one Federal court means loss in ALL federal courts (for the same type of case)…no more peripatetic Orly state and judge shopping equivalent at the federal level

    Technically, that’s not true. Precedent between district courts is not binding, just as precedents between different circuits are not binding. However, what it does provide is what’s called a case-on-point. While not binding, it provides a persuasive argument.

  64. avatar
    Kevin Reeve April 26, 2012 at 11:31 am #

    RuhRoh:
    @clestes:

    Your basic understanding is correct, yes. Taitz was initially trying to claim that the MS Democratic Party and the Secretary of State had an obligation to prove that Obama was constitutionally eligible to hold the office of POTUS before putting him on the primary ballot. And because it’s Orly Taitz, many irrelevant claims, calumnies and documents were also included. She originally filed pro se to escape the need to apply for pro hac vice.But then she filed the amended complaint, adding several other plaintiffs, at which point she was effectively practicing law without a license in MS. It simply became more convoluted from there.

    No, she would not have won the case. Either the MS Democratic Party or the SoS did seek sanctions against her. (I don’t recall which.)

    Orly worked herself into a paranoid fit and asked for a new judge while in the same breath complaining that her case was not proceeding quickly enough.All she has accomplishedis delaying the case, yes. Whether it will be delayed beyond the general election I could not tell you, but it’s certainly been set back a few months.

    The only benefit the delay affords Taitz is that she can keep screaming on her blog and asking for money from her dimwitted supporters.

  65. avatar
    Kevin Reeve April 26, 2012 at 11:32 am #

    Growing up in the post-war era (after the Second World War), I never expected to live in the strange Kafkaesque world that exists today. The US government can assassinate any US citizen that the executive branch thinks could possibly be a “threat” to the US government, or throw the hapless citizen into a dungeon for the rest of his or her life without presenting any evidence to a court or obtaining a conviction of any crime, or send the “threat” to a puppet foreign state to be tortured until the “threat” confesses to a crime that never occurred or dies at the hands of “freedom and democracy” while professing innocence.
    photoA strange Kafkaesque world.

  66. avatar
    RuhRoh April 26, 2012 at 11:35 am #

    The official Order Of Recusal: http://www.scribd.com/doc/91386533/MS-2012-04-26-HCCC-Taitz-Order-of-Recusal

  67. avatar
    Keith May 2, 2012 at 3:11 am #

    abc:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/04/the-occasional-open-thread-sisyphean-quest-edition/#comment-182760

    Spamming your open-mike topics into other topic threads will not win you any friends here.

    Just sayin’.