Main Menu

Taitz files incomprehensible lawsuit

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:

image

I never knew that Tim Allen was an elections clerk in Honolulu!

 

Here’s the complaint:

Taitz v Obama, et al.(SC CA) – 1 – Affidavit of Election Challenge

37 Responses to Taitz files incomprehensible lawsuit

  1. avatar
    JPotter July 12, 2012 at 9:41 pm #

    Is this crap being churned out in a Moldovan sweat shop?!?

    Or is there an app for this? Surely there must be a crappy legalese app out there. Or, hell, maybe an excellent legalese app. This is what you get when you feed a brilliant algorithm birther parameters.

  2. avatar
    Majority Will July 12, 2012 at 10:11 pm #

    JPotter:
    Is this crap being churned out in a Moldovan sweat shop?!?

    Or is there an app for this? Surely there must be a crappy legalese app out there. Or, hell, maybe an excellent legalese app. This is what you get when you feed a brilliant algorithm birther parameters.

    Here you go:
    http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nonsense/id295472658?mt=8

    :-D

  3. avatar
    G July 12, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

    Her filings continue to degrade as her level of insanity increases…it is all directly proportional.

  4. avatar
    donna July 12, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

    lol

    page 2 affidavit of timothy allen? tim adams? tim buktu? all equally credible as “experts”

  5. avatar
    Paul July 12, 2012 at 10:44 pm #

    I keep wondering how long it will be before the state just shuts her down. But then we would all be robbed if the entertainment.

  6. avatar
    donna July 12, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

    Paul: “I keep wondering ……”

    i keep remembering what nh republican majority leader, bettencourt wrote:

    Please, Dr. Taitz, go away and leave New Hampshire alone.

    i think everyone has that thought when they see her coming in whatever manner

  7. avatar
    Paper July 12, 2012 at 10:52 pm #

    A Reverse Turing Test?

  8. avatar
    JPotter July 12, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

    Paper: A Reverse Turing Test?

    Most Computerific Human ;)

    LOL! Flip to her exhibit 12, the voters born in 1850 …! Suspiciously, they’re all listed as 01/01/1850! HAHAHAHAHA! Whatever could that mean …. I know, that Jan 1, 1850 was a very magic day …. ;)

  9. avatar
    Thrifty July 12, 2012 at 11:04 pm #

    I think I’m getting that French disease that makes you remember things twice. Deja vu I think?

  10. avatar
    Northland10 July 12, 2012 at 11:06 pm #

    She included the DVD of her “HISTORIC TRIAL” again. Maybe they might want to ask how that went.

    Clarence Thomas has an answer:

    No. 12A25
    Title:
    David Farrar, et al., Applicants
    v.
    Barack Obama
    Docketed: July 9, 2012
    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Georgia
    Case Nos.: (S12D1180)

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Jul 2 2012 Application (12A25) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Thomas.

    Jul 12 2012 Application (12A25) denied by Justice Thomas

    Oops.

  11. avatar
    justlw July 13, 2012 at 12:17 am #

    JPotter: Whatever could that mean …. I know, that Jan 1, 1850 was a very magic day

    Or Apr 1, 1849.

  12. avatar
    John Reilly July 13, 2012 at 1:11 am #

    Wouldn’t she need to sue Deborah Bowen, the Secretary of State, to keep her from certifying results?

    Oops. I’m letting reality intrude.

    One presumes she will not have served the President, or perhaps anyone else, by tomorrow, or whenever, and her request for whatever will be denied on some technical ground, rather than the merits. Again.

    One of the exhibits is a copy of the President’s certified birth certificate. Perhaps the judge will understand full faith and credit.

  13. avatar
    Justice of the Peas July 13, 2012 at 3:01 am #

    I particularly enjoyed seeing her legal assistant’s Certificate of Service – she notified Barack Obama of the super-duper emergency ex parte hearing by calling the “official White House comment line”…

  14. avatar
    Keith July 13, 2012 at 7:17 am #

    Thrifty:
    I think I’m getting that French disease that makes you remember things twice.Deja vu I think?

    Oh oh! Not that again!

  15. avatar
    realist July 13, 2012 at 7:19 am #

    “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.”

    The hearing tomorrow is on the emergency stay of election results… in other words, to prevent the SoS, who is not a party to the suit, from certifying the results.

    I suspect that will be denied.

    The rest of the suit will be dealt with at a later time, assuming Taitz can figure out how to pursue an election challenge properly.

  16. avatar
    Ragout July 13, 2012 at 9:38 am #

    Dr. C writes “16100 does not apply to primaries.” But Section 16100 applies to “any election.” I see nothing suggesting that primary elections are not elections.

    It looks to me like Orly has a valid cause of action. Section 16100 reads:

    “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:

    (b)That the person who has been declared elected to an office was not, at the time of the election, eligible to that office.”

  17. avatar
    alg July 13, 2012 at 9:48 am #

    Just an observation…while Orly’s website has always been something close to incomprehensible, it lately appears to have devolved ever further. I didn’t think that was at all possible, but obviously, I was mistaken. Orly Taitz no longer appears just eccentric, she is clearly in a state of full decompensation. She appears perilously close to requiring medical supervision.

  18. avatar
    Ragout July 13, 2012 at 9:58 am #

    Dr. C writes “16100 does not apply to primaries.” But section 16100 applies the “any election,” which presumably includes primaries. It looks to me like Orly has a valid cause of action. Section 16100 says:

    “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:

    ….

    (b)That the person who has been declared elected to an office was not, at the time of the election, eligible to that office.”

  19. avatar
    Scientist July 13, 2012 at 10:36 am #

    Ragout: Dr. C writes “16100 does not apply to primaries.” But section 16100 applies the “any election,” which presumably includes primaries. It looks to me like Orly has a valid cause of action. Section 16100 says:“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:….(b)That the person who has been declared elected to an office was not, at the time of the election, eligible to that office.”

    Orly is challenging a Senate primary. What evidence do you have that Diane Feinstein is not eligible to be a Senator (after having been one for a couple of decades already)?

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 13, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    Read your own comment. 16100 (b) applies when someone is “elected to an office.” Barack Obama was not elected to office in the primary. Orly has nothing.

    I will update the article to make it more precise.

    Ragout: Dr. C writes “16100 does not apply to primaries.” But section 16100 applies the “any election,” which presumably includes primaries. It looks to me like Orly has a valid cause of action. Section 16100 says:

    “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:

    ….

    (b)That the person who has been declared elected to an office was not, at the time of the election, eligible to that office.”

  21. avatar
    Sam the Centipede July 13, 2012 at 10:51 am #

    Scientist: Orly is challenging a Senate primary.What evidence do you have that Diane Feinstein is not eligible to be a Senator (after having been one for a couple of decades already)?

    It’s a primary so nobody is elected to an office (candidate is not an office) so the rule is irrelevant. It would only apply for the actual election to the Senate.

    Someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it was established that typically anybody can stand in most elections, but the winner cannot take office if ineligible. Hence the arguments about whether or not election officials should (a) ask about and/or (b) verify the eligibility of candidates to hold the office they are standing for.

    Of course, in OrlyLaw, any judge pointing this out would clearly be corrupt.

  22. avatar
    Bob July 13, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    HISTORIC HISTRIONIC TRIAL

  23. avatar
    Rickey July 13, 2012 at 11:20 am #

    Ragout:
    Dr. Cwrites “16100 does not apply to primaries.”But section 16100 applies the “any election,” which presumably includes primaries.It looks to me like Orly has a valid cause of action.Section 16100 says:

    “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:

    (b)That the person who has been declared elected to an office was not, at the time of the election, eligible to that office.”

    The key phrase in paragraph (b) is “person who has been declared elected to an office.” Orly is contesting a primary. Nobody was elected to an office as a result of the primary.

  24. avatar
    G July 13, 2012 at 11:35 am #

    Some of us are of the opinion that she was already past the point of requiring that a long time ago…

    alg: She appears perilously close to requiring medical supervision.

  25. avatar
    realist July 13, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    I have no details as of yet, but her request for a stay of the certification of votes in the primary was DENIED today.

  26. avatar
    BillTheCat July 13, 2012 at 7:20 pm #

    She failed again, a delightful Friday Smackdown :)

    Worst. Lawyer. EVER.

  27. avatar
    Reality Check July 13, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

    Thank you Birthers for making for another great weekend!

  28. avatar
    donna July 13, 2012 at 8:34 pm #

    CA – Orly v Obama – Smackdown report

    From reliable sources

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/ca-orly-v-obama-smackdown-report/

  29. avatar
    Rickey July 14, 2012 at 12:13 am #

    donna:
    CA – Orly v Obama – Smackdown report

    From reliable sources

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/ca-orly-v-obama-smackdown-report/

    And the primary results were certified on Friday. In California the certification is called “Statement of Vote.”

    http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-primary/

  30. avatar
    Rickey July 14, 2012 at 12:21 am #

    The Orange County Register coverage is up.

    http://totalbuzz.ocregister.com/2012/07/13/o-c-birther-suit-to-block-election-results-denied/87439/

  31. avatar
    misha July 14, 2012 at 1:55 am #

    Slightly OT, but apropos of Tim Allen: On October 2, 1978, Allen was arrested in the Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport for possession of over 650 grams (1.4 lb) of cocaine. He subsequently pleaded guilty to drug trafficking charges, and provided the names of other dealers in exchange for a sentence of three to seven years rather than a possible life imprisonment. He was paroled on June 12, 1981, after serving 2 years and 4 months in Federal Correctional Institution, Sandstone in Sandstone, Minnesota. Allen had the Federal Bureau of Prisons Register # 04276-040.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Allen

  32. avatar
    Northland10 July 14, 2012 at 9:58 am #

    misha: On October 2, 1978, Allen was arrested in the Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport

    Since some of us are sticklers for historical details, I will continue the OT comment by mentioning that it was the Kalamazoo Municipal Airport at the time. I remember watching many a Blue Goose fly into the airport back then.

  33. avatar
    nbc July 14, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    Ragout: (b)That the person who has been declared elected to an office was not, at the time of the election, eligible to that office.”

    Noone was elected to any office in the primaries. That’s the point Dr C is making.

    Note that all that happens at the presidential primaries is that delegates are ‘elected’ who will in September nominate their Candidate for the office of the President after which the electors for the President will be chosen as well.
    Perhaps Orly wants to refile a challenge that does not suffer from her previous attempts to timely file, but given the precedents, I doubt that the Courts will be impressed.

  34. avatar
    misha July 14, 2012 at 11:03 pm #

    Taitz files incomprehensible lawsuit

    Svetlana Orly Taitz never denied being a streetwalker in Romania.

  35. avatar
    Keith July 14, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

    Northland10: Since some of us are sticklers for historical details, I will continue the OT comment by mentioning that it was the Kalamazoo Municipal Airport at the time.I remember watching many a Blue Goose fly into the airport back then.

    I always loved Kalamazoo-zoo-zoo!

  36. avatar
    donna July 15, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

    O.C. ‘birther’ sues to block primary election results

    http://totalbuzz.ocregister.com/2012/07/12/o-c-birther-sues-to-block-primary-election-results/87413/

    Orly complains to the writer of the Orange County register.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/educating-the-confused-orly-and-the-oc-register/

  37. avatar
    Rickey July 15, 2012 at 11:34 pm #

    donna:

    Orly complains to the writer of the Orange County register.

    Orly’s reading comprehension deficiencies continue.