The case of Keith Judd et al v. Barack Obama et al was filed in California state court, but after an unfavorable ruling, Orly Taitz “removed” it to federal court. This seems to be an example of Orly law, since in traditional law, only defendants remove cases. Nonetheless, something happened and now there is a case that appears on the docket for the California Central District Court.
The new judge presiding over the case is none other than the Honorable David O. Carter, fully experienced in the unique legal approach of Taitz from the case of Barnett v. Obama. He saw that case transmogrify from a challenge to Obama’s election to a RICO action, and saw first hand her inability to properly serve President Obama (Orly’s volunteer left the summons with a male clerk, a mail clerk, or was it a male mail clerk?).
The present case is curious because the court docket doesn’t show a complaint. The only copy we have is the final draft from the Taitz web site. Whether the case truly exists in federal court is something from a branch of law too esoteric for me (the authority Taitz cites, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, seems to apply only to removal by defendants), but I do note that Judge Carter accepted the transfer of the case from another federal judge pursuant to General Order 08-05 (Been There, Done That). The court did issue summons.
Moved, removed, or created ex nihilo
The Docket indicates that Orly Taitz filed an electronic copy and a paper copy of her notice of removal and that they weren’t the same (Taitz says they are). Judge Carter ordered Taitz to file a correct electronic copy by September 25. This is the markup made by the Superior Court court clerk:
Later Taitz filed an “Administrative motion to correct the record,” saying that she wasn’t removing the case, but filing a new related case. But how does one file a new complaint titled “First Amended complaint?” Oppsies. Now, the question remains, where’s the complaint in this NEW case? It’s not on the court docket, but maybe, just maybe the defendants were served with it.
Meanwhile Taitz requested leave to file a motion for a stay or to shorten the time for defendants1 to respond (Federal defendants get 60 days to respond under the rules except, I guess, under Orly law). In one of her motions Taitz listed who she considered to be the “Federal defendants” and the name of Barack Obama was not there. Carter whipped out his big red DENIED electronic rubber stamp and put that one out of its misery.
Orly misrepresents a client
In her “Emergency motion for stay”, Taitz wrote:
Plaintiffs include Keith Judd, who ran for the U.S. President in the Democratic Party primary and got 40% of the vote in the state of Virginia.
That should be West Virginia.
The last action of note in the case is the application to appear pro hac vice by Nancy J. Smith, New Hampshire Asst. Attorney General on behalf of the New Hampshire Secretary of State, William Gardner, and the NH Ballot Law Commission defendants: granted.
1The defendants are: Michael Astrue, John Avlon, Ballot Law Commission of State of Hew Hampshire, Board of Directors of California Republican Party, Debra Bowen, CNN, William A Chatfield, Clearchannel Communications, Jane Does, John Does, Patrick R Donahoe, Elizabeth Emken, Dianne Feinstein, Forbes Magazine, William M Gardner, Alice Travis Germond, Eric Holder, John and Ken Show, KFI AM 640, Brian P Kemp, John Kobelt, Clay D Land, Dean C Logan, MSNBC, Chris Matthews, Lynn Matusow, Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama, Obama for America, Alvin Onaka, Nancy Pelosi, Brian Schatz, Natalie E Tennant and Kevin Underhill.