Main Menu

Taitz fires off 15 subpoenas in Indiana

Orly Taitz filed 15 subpoenas in the Indiana case of Taitz v. Elections Commission for appearances June 12 in Marion County Superior Court. They are requested to bring various documents from the Taitz wish list.  The lucky recipients are:

  • Connie Lawson, Indiana Secretary of State
  • Sarah Riordan, member of the Indiana Election Commission
  • Daniel Dumezich, Chairman of the Indiana Election Commission
  • Anthony Long, Vice-Chairman of the Indiana Election Commission
  • Bryce Bennett, Jr., member of the Indiana Election Commission
  • Ken Bennett (Hi Ken!), Arizona Secretary of State
  • Miriam Goderich, Dystel & Goderich Literary Management
  • Mr. John Sampson1, Department of Homeland Security, Denver
  • Michael Zullo, Maricopa County Cold Case Posse Lead Investigator
  • Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, AZ
  • Nancy Pelosi, Democratic National Convention Chairwoman, 2008
  • Barack Hussein Obama
  • Michael Astrue, Commissioner Social Security Administration
  • Alvin Onaka, State Registrar, Hawaii
  • Loretta Fuddy, Director of Health, Hawaii

Taitz signed the subpoenas herself, presumably filling out blank forms obtained from the clerk of court; however, these forms do not bear the signature or seal of the court. See Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure Rule 45. For an appearance at a hearing, there are special requirements for out-of-state persons according to Rule 45 (E):

A subpoena may be served at any place within the state; and when permitted by the laws of the United States, this or another state or foreign country, the court upon proper application and cause shown may authorize the service of a subpoena outside the state in accordance with and as permitted by such law.

Read more:

 


1Sampson told me that he had retired from DHS.

, , ,

21 Responses to Taitz fires off 15 subpoenas in Indiana

  1. avatar
    Graham Shevlin May 22, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

    Somebody help me here…why have the purposes for which the individual is being subpoena’d not been filled in? Does this not invalidate the entire stack?

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 22, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    Sorry about the flip-flopping end of the article. I am not a lawyer.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 22, 2012 at 9:47 pm #

    Not sure, but I would think the entire stack is invalid because they lack the seal and signature of the court. Orly can’t sign them herself. Further, the last 10 are for out-of-state-persons and such subpoenas require leave of the court after showing cause and legal authority.

    Graham Shevlin: Somebody help me here…why have the purposes for which the individual is being subpoena’d not been filled in? Does this not invalidate the entire stack?

  4. avatar
    y_p_w May 22, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

    Graham Shevlin: Somebody help me here…why have the purposes for which the individual is being subpoena’d not been filled in? Does this not invalidate the entire stack?

    I would think so. They’re clearly defective.

    This also looks very different especially without the signature of the judge.

    I’d also be surprised if she could get any judge in another state to enforce one of these subpoenas across state lines on the basis of their massive defects. And as she probably already found out, a state subpoena can’t be enforced against someone in their capacity as a federal employee.

    I’d expect a bunch of these to be blown right off after various attorneys (and they all have some sort of house counsel) take a quick look at them. Maybe even a nice letter back to Orly.

  5. avatar
    CarlOrcas May 22, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    She missed Mailman Al.

  6. avatar
    Rickey May 22, 2012 at 10:01 pm #

    Graham Shevlin:
    Somebody help me here…why have the purposes for which the individual is being subpoena’d not been filled in? Does this not invalidate the entire stack?

    I don’t know the Rules of Civil Procedure in Indiana, but at the very least I would expect that Orly is required to check off the appropriate boxes to indicate on which party’s behalf the witnesses are being subpoenaed. The wording of most of the subpoenas also appears to me to be overly broad.

    I would also expect that, even if the subpoenas are otherwise valid, the rules in Indiana require Orly to pay the out-of-state witnesses travel expenses. I agree with Doc that the subpoenas for the out-of-state witnesses are not valid, but it would be fun to see Orly have to cough up the cash for a plane ticket for Obama.

  7. avatar
    Keith May 22, 2012 at 10:16 pm #

    This is not the first time the dentist has pulled this stunt, sending fake subpoena’s out. Don’t courts have rules against abusing their offices in this way?

    Exactly why isn’t this Contempt of Court? By any definition of the word ‘contempt’ Orly has it in spades for every court and Administrative Council she has thrown her excrement into.

    Why are they letting her get away with this crap?

    Much has been made that she is shopping all around the country till she finds a Judge that is wackier than she is. I think she is going to find one that will throw her in jail for a couple of weeks for contempt first.

  8. avatar
    Jim May 22, 2012 at 10:22 pm #

    Rickey: but it would be fun to see Orly have to cough up the cash for a plane ticket for Obama.

    Hmmmmm, I wonder how much Air Force One would cost her…since that’s how the President travels. Plus, he’d need secret service, the courthouse would have to be swept, and of course the motorcade to/from the airport. All on Orly’s dime. That could run into a pretty penny! .

  9. avatar
    Keith May 22, 2012 at 10:59 pm #

    Jim: Hmmmmm, I wonder how much Air Force One would cost her…

    I was thinking along those lines too; but the ludicrousness of Obama actually showing up deflated my anticipatory excitement balloon.

  10. avatar
    ZixiOfIx May 22, 2012 at 11:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Not sure, but I would think the entire stack is invalid because they lack the seal and signature of the court. Orly can’t sign them herself. Further, the last 10 are for out-of-state-persons and such subpoenas require leave of the court after showing cause and legal authority.

    She (and many others) seem to be past the point of caring if their cases get anywhere or if they are doing anything correctly/legally. It seems to be all about publicity and money.

    They are making a mockery of the legal system. That this is allowed to flourish is an indictment of every state these jokers are licensed to practice in.

  11. avatar
    donna May 22, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

    the ditz tried this in ga with arpaio whose attorney responded that the subpoena was NOT VALID

  12. avatar
    Rickey May 22, 2012 at 11:54 pm #

    There also is the issue of valid service. Again, I don’t know the rules in Indiana, but in New York a process server has to make three attempts to serve a subpoena personally before it can be served by mail, and even then a copy of the subpoena has to be affixed to the door at the witness’ address.

    My guess is that Orly just put her subpoenas in the mail.

  13. avatar
    justlw May 22, 2012 at 11:58 pm #

    Poor Miriam Goderich. I wonder how long it took her to realize what it meant to be Birtherland’s latest fixation, and how cold the chill that ran down her back at that moment was.

    So I’ve seen a couple of places where some birfers are getting all giddy, because they think they’ve caught her out — because, even though she says she was responsible for the 1991 error,

    [the o]nly problem with this is that Goderich didn’t start working for Acton & Dystel until 1995.

    This turns out to be a reading comprehension fail. The linked bio doesn’t say Goderich went to work there in 1995, it says she and Dystel “have been partners since 1995.” (emphasis mine)

    We already know that she didn’t start out as a partner — she said she was an “agency assistant” in 1991. And in the “personal essay” she links to, she mentions working on a manuscript shortly after she was hired, for a book called China Boy. Which turns out to have been published in… 1991.

  14. avatar
    nbc May 23, 2012 at 12:27 am #

    Well, Hawaii verified Obama’s birth to Bennett, so Orly can ask him 🙂

  15. avatar
    y_p_w May 23, 2012 at 12:37 am #

    Rickey:
    There also is the issue of valid service. Again, I don’t know the rules in Indiana, but in New York a process server has to make three attempts to serve a subpoena personally before it can be served by mail, and even then a copy of the subpoena has to be affixed to the door at the witness’ address.

    My guess is that Orly just put her subpoenas in the mail.

    They’re pretty lenient in Indiana. However, I don’t see any proof of service attached to any of these subpoenas.

    Rule 4.1. Summons: Service on individuals

    (A) In General. Service may be made upon an individual, or an individual acting in a representative capacity, by:

    (1) sending a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail or other public means by which a written acknowledgment of receipt may be requested and obtained to his residence, place of business or employment with return receipt requested and returned showing receipt of the letter; or

    (2) delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to him personally; or

    (3) leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at his dwelling house or usual place of abode; or

    (4) serving his agent as provided by rule, statute or valid agreement.

    (B) Copy Service to Be Followed With Mail. Whenever service is made under Clause (3) or (4) of subdivision (A), the person making the service also shall send by first class mail, a copy of the summons without the complaint to the last known address of the person being served, and this fact shall be shown upon the return.

    The other thing is that Rule 45 allows an attorney in the case to sign off on a subpoena.

    An attorney admitted to practice law in this state, as an officer of the court, may also issue and sign such subpoenas on behalf of the court in which the action is pending or a court of the county in which the deposition is being taken, if the hearing, deposition or production pertains to an action pending in a court where the attorney has appeared for a party in that case.

    However, she clearly states that she’s a pro se plaintiff and it doesn’t sound as if she’s been admitted pro hac vice. The rules clearly state that one must be admitted to practice law in Indiana in order to sign off on ones own subpoenas, and Orly obviously isn’t licensed in Indiana. The rule clearly says “officer of the court”, which she is not. Ergo, she ain’t authorized to sign off on her own subpoenas.

  16. avatar
    BillTheCat May 23, 2012 at 3:02 am #

    The Fright Wig continues to craptice law illegally in IN. She just keeps digging the hole deeper.

  17. avatar
    Lupin May 23, 2012 at 4:00 am #

    ZixiOfIx: They are making a mockery of the legal system. That this is allowed to flourish is an indictment of every state these jokers are licensed to practice in.

    Hear hear! I couldn’t agree more.

  18. avatar
    Thinker May 23, 2012 at 8:12 am #

    Orly’s post on these “subpoenas” says that she is sending these to the court for signatures. She does not claim to have sent them to the people named in them.

  19. avatar
    John Reilly May 23, 2012 at 8:42 am #

    One would think the subpoena power of the Indiana courts ends at the state line.

    Of course, there are posters at Dr. Taitz’s site wondering why Officer Zullo didn’t just arrest the Hawaiian officials. Those are folks who fail to understabd state rights laid out in the Iowa Republican platform.

  20. avatar
    JD Reed May 23, 2012 at 9:11 am #

    Seems foolhardy for Taitz to even try anything in Indiana, where there’s a state Supreme Court precedent against her cause. No inferior court can overrule the state’s highest court, and there’s scant likelihood that the high court will reverse itself. Thus it seems that her activities can only reinforce the precedent against her.

  21. avatar
    y_p_w May 23, 2012 at 10:23 am #

    John Reilly:
    One would think the subpoena power of the Indiana courts ends at the state line.

    Of course, there are posters at Dr. Taitz’s site wondering why Officer Zullo didn’t just arrest the Hawaiian officials.Those are folks who fail to understabd state rights laid out in the Iowa Republican platform.

    There is an allowance for issuing a subpoena out of state. However, it certainly sounds as if they state “You’re on your own” in regards to determining the procedure to issue or enforce a subpoena out of state.

    A subpoena may be served at any place within the state; and when permitted by the laws of the United States, this or another state or foreign country, the court upon proper application and cause shown may authorize the service of a subpoena outside the state in accordance with and as permitted by such law.

    So it sounds like she would have to look up exactly how an out of state subpoena is supposed to be enforced in a particular jurisdiction and get back to the court with the particulars before they authorize it. This will be fun.