Quickly on the heels of her previous incoherent offering to the courts loosely attaching an Obama is a bad guy lawsuit to a challenge to the Affordable Healthcare Act, we see another jolting juxtaposition in her new Taitz v. Obama suit in California Superior Court for Orange County.
Taitz alleges massive voter fraud in the California Senate Primary, where Taitz’ polls showed her in 2nd place, but which she lost badly. She claims persons on the voter rolls were born in 1850 and that a married couple was not allowed to vote for her. Taitz provides pages from a “voter roll” listing dates of birth as “1/1/1850,” but never explains where the list came from. (My guess is that those are not real dates of birth.) Another affidavit was from a man who was told that as a registered non-partisan voter, he was not allowed to vote for the Republican candidate for Senate. How could this happen? Apparently for the same reason that every other bad thing in the world happens, Barack Obama is a usurper.
The defendants in her lawsuit include President Obama as well as the other candidates in the Senate Primary. The incomprehensible part of the suit is the appearance of Barack Obama. The California statutes she cites, 16100 and 16101, do not apply. 16100(b) (ineligibility) does not apply to primaries and 16101 which does apply to primaries is only available to opposing candidates; Taitz was not running for President.
Here are the relevant sections:
16100. Any elector of a county, city, or of any political subdivision of either may contest any election held therein, for any of the following causes:
(a) That the precinct board or any member thereof was guilty of malconduct.
(b) That the person who has been declared elected to an office was not, at the time of the election, eligible to that office.
(c) That the defendant has given to any elector or member of a precinct board any bribe or reward, or has offered any bribe or reward for the purpose of procuring his election, or has committed any other offense against the elective franchise defined in Division 18 (commencing with Section 18000).
(d) That illegal votes were cast.
(e) That eligible voters who attempted to vote in accordance with the laws of the state were denied their right to vote.
(f) That the precinct board in conducting the election or in canvassing the returns, made errors sufficient to change the result of the election as to any person who has been declared elected.
(g) That there was an error in the vote-counting programs or summation of ballot counts.
16101. Any candidate at a primary election may contest the right of
another candidate to nomination to the same office by filing an affidavit alleging any of the following grounds, that:
(a) The defendant is not eligible to the office in dispute.
(b) The defendant has committed any offense against the elective franchise defined in Division 18 (commencing with Section 18000).
(c) A sufficient number of votes were illegal, fraudulent, forged, or otherwise improper, and that had those votes not been counted, the defendant would not have received as many votes as the contestant.
(d) A sufficient number of eligible voters who attempted to vote in accordance with the laws of the state were denied their right to vote, and that had those voters been permitted to vote, the defendant would not have received as many votes as the contestant.
(e) Due to mistake, error, or misconduct the votes in any precinct were so incorrectly counted as to change the result.
While any voter may challenge under 16100, eligibility only applies to one who is elected, and no one is elected in a primary. In 16101 an eligibility challenge may be made in a primary, but only by a candidate for the same office. This is why I call the suit, insofar as it applies to Barack Obama, “incomprehensible.” Also the fact that she sued no one who can actually do anything to grant the relief Taitz seeks is incomprehensible. Also in her Senate challenge, it is not clear that she has alleged that the abuses she claims are sufficient to have affected the outcome.
Today’s hearing is continued until tomorrow. I assume that the case will be dismissed as to Barack Obama, but perhaps will survive as a challenge to the Senate primary results.
Update: My bad. The hearing today was only to discuss her super emergency motion to stay the election certification. Denied.
Her 74-page affidavit looks remarkably like her complaint against the health care law, at least as to the exhibits. One of the odd items in the lawsuit is an affidavit from this guy:
I never knew that Tim Allen was an elections clerk in Honolulu!
Here’s the complaint: