Orly Taitz once had a chance to obtain a default judgment against Barack Obama in Georgia, but she threw it away by demanding to put on her case and obtain a judgment on the merits (she lost due to lack of merit). Since then, she has filed notices of default from time to time, recently in the case of Judd v. Obama. The whole case was dismissed sua sponte shortly thereafter.
The word is that Taitz has filed another notice of default, this time against the Indiana Secretary of State and Elections Commission for failing to respond to her “Second Amended Complaint.” I’ve been trying to sort out this Indiana stuff without a great deal of success. One cannot just click a couple of links to get court documents from Marion County, Indiana, Superior Court, so I have to rely largely on what Orly Taitz chooses to disclose.
A hearing was held in Indiana on September 26 to consider a preliminary injunction to keep Obama off the ballot. That motion was denied in an order published October 16.
I bought a copy of the Marion County docket for the case this morning. It shows that Taitz filed her “First Amended Complaint” on May 7, 2012, and as best I can tell, a response was filed May 21. If I understand the rules, once a response has been filed, plaintiffs cannot file another amended complaint without leave of the court, and I have not seen any information as to this leave being granted . The language in the court’s order for the trial this coming Monday references the causes and defendants in the “First Amended Complaint” only. The notice of default doesn’t appear, but there is a motion to dismiss the “Second Amended Complaint” filed yesterday (October 18).
On Monday, the trial will involve only two of the causes, declaratory relief and permanent injunction. I presume that these two were selected because they involve the conduct of the election, and this is an expedited hearing. What continues to baffle me is how this can be litigated without Barack Obama as a party.