Main Menu

Overlap

Dealing with frivolous litigation, whether filed by a seasoned attorney or a novice pro se litigant, is a bit like wrangling cats.

Robert J. Davis

imageI’m still looking for a statute or rule that prevents this, but what I observe is that Orly Taitz is suing the same people for the same thing in different courts. Orly herself admits this in her notice of an application to consolidate three of her cases across multiple jurisdictions:

…cases, which were filed in several jurisdiction, but have in the core
the same nucleus of facts dealing with Candidate for President Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and fraudulently obtained Social Security number used to get on the ballot by fraud. (Judd 18)

I hold the degree of De Facto Doctor Juris Pro Hac Vice, which gives me the authority to read Wikipedia articles and summarize them on this blog.

One Wikipedia article I read was about collateral estoppel. This principle says that if you lose your case, you can’t just sue the same party again for the same thing under a different cause of action. Invocation of collateral estoppel requires a final judgment in a case, and all of the three (Taitz v. Sebelius, Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi and Judd v. Obama) are ongoing. Collateral estoppel might apply to defendant Michael Astrue of the Social Security Administration since he was sued previously by Taitz and won.

Another principle codified in 28 USC § 1927 is a prohibition against needlessly multiplying proceedings, but that seems to apply only within a single case.

Sanctions can be imposed for bringing a frivolous lawsuit, and that may be the remedy here. See Federal Rule 11 and 42 U.S.C § 1988(b).

The following table details the overlap of defendants in the three active Taitz federal Obama lawsuits. She is suing 36 parties in total.

Taitz v. Sebelius Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi Judd v. Obama
Barrack Hussein Obama Barrack Hussein Obama Barrack Hussein Obama
Nancy Pelosi Nancy Pelosi Nancy Pelosi
Brian Schatz   Brian Schatz
Lynn Matusow   Lynn Matusow
Alvin Onaka Alvin Onaka Alvin Onaka
Michael Astrue Michael Astrue Michael Astrue
Eric Holder   Eric Holder
William A Chatfield   William A Chatfield
Alice Travis Germond   Alice Travis Germond
  Obama for America Obama for America
+ 1 other + 3 others + 22 others

, , , ,

9 Responses to Overlap

  1. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny October 9, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

    There is res judicata as well (which is the reason why these suits would also be unrealistic in countries which do not have the common law as their basis).

    Though IANAL, I think there is one reason why these birfer suits are not all prime candidates for dismissal under collateral estoppel. The case that was decided before needs a decision on the merits.

    IF Astrue won on the merits, then yes, collateral estoppel may apply, but it could be argued that suing him under RICO with potentially everybody involved in the US government and the US justice system on the same side, does not really constitute “the same case”.

    He may have more grounds to ask for sanctions than the other defendants, I guess.

  2. avatar
    JPotter October 9, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    I say let them all go forward, and let the sanctions rack up.

    She literally asked for it.

  3. avatar
    AnotherBird October 10, 2012 at 6:45 am #

    Orly Taitz is so desperate she is actually wasting court resources. It seems that she is digging a very big hole for herself.

  4. avatar
    ASK Esq October 10, 2012 at 7:42 am #

    The problem with collateral estoppel is it only applies to other courts in the same jurisidction, at the same level or lower. For example, Georgia is not bound by what Indiana says. So if she sues Astrue in Indiana and loses, she can sue him again in Georgia. He can ask the court to consider the Indiana ruling, but Georgia isn’t bound by it. So as long as she doesn’t file a case with the same issues that have already been decided previously in that jurisdiction, it wouldn’t apply.

  5. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny October 10, 2012 at 8:43 am #

    ASK Esq:
    The problem with collateral estoppel is it only applies to other courts in the same jurisidction, at the same level or lower. For example, Georgia is not bound by what Indiana says.So if she sues Astrue in Indiana and loses, she can sue him again in Georgia. He can ask the court to consider the Indiana ruling, but Georgia isn’t bound by it. So as long as she doesn’t file a case with the same issues that have already been decided previously in that jurisdiction, it wouldn’t apply.

    Checked Astrue. DC court, decision on the merits, but now at SCOTUS – where a clerk, basing him- or herself on Taitz’ own case history in her motion, told her that her motion came too late (in fact, it did not come late, but not for the reason Orly screeched in her panic mail to the clerk). Seems there is no final decision even, or is Doc alluding to an earlier case in California?

    The problem being of course that Orly cannot really sue Astrue outside DC unless in a RICO, which we all know she cannot even write the base document for.

  6. avatar
    ASK Esq October 10, 2012 at 9:22 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: The problem being of course that Orly cannot really sue Astrue outside DC unless in a RICO, which we all know she cannot even write the base document for.

    I wasn’t saying that she had any legitimate cause of action against him (or, of course, anyone on the planet). I was just using his name in an example of how she could keep suing the same party without colatteral estoppel coming into it by bringing suits in different jurisdictions.

  7. avatar
    Sam the Centipede October 10, 2012 at 10:29 am #

    The comprehensive rubbishness of these Taitz cases might work against estoppel etc.as most of the birther cases get kicked out with the judicial form of a “WTF?” response due to standing, ripeness, venue, jurisdiction, justiciability, etc. defects.

    Clearly if a plaintiff sues a defendant in the wrong court and it’s kicked out simply because that court is the wrong venue, the plaintiff still has the right to correct that defect and start a new case in the appropriate court. It’s not a case of “oh no, you had one go, that’s all that’s allowed, however rubbish you were”.

    So the birthers’ inability to write and talk sense, to deal with facts, to operate within the rules of the courts system, seems to give that Community of Clowns an Immunity of Idiots.

    Taitz and the other birther madmen seem to get away with it because judges and real lawyers cannot quite believe how appalling these people are nor work out how to deal with them, short of taking them out into the backyard and giving them a paddlin’.

    Of course IANAL!

  8. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny October 10, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    Sam the Centipede: So the birthers’ inability to write and talk sense, to deal with facts, to operate within the rules of the courts system, seems to give that Community of Clowns an Immunity of Idiots.

    Taitz and the other birther madmen seem to get away with it because judges and real lawyers cannot quite believe how appalling these people are nor work out how to deal with them, short of taking them out into the backyard and giving them a paddlin’.

    Well, according to a real lawyer at the FogBow, Taitz’ antics with Judd vs Obama (removing to federal while she is the plaintiff and then re-titling that motion as a first amended complaint) might actually get her into collateral estoppel vicinity. All it takes is one of her defendants hitting her with an anti-SLAPP motion. If the anti-SLAPP motion is denied because it is against a first amended complaint and the judge rules there never was a first amended complaint … The lawyer believes it would mean any future birfer law suit by Taitz in California, state or federal (because of diversity) could then be considered a case of abuse of process, as Orly gamed the system to avoid a successful ant-SLAPP.

    It is not like there is no way to stop lunatics from abusing the courts. But anti-SLAPP motions and motions asking for lawyers’ fees and damages may be necessary.

  9. avatar
    TX Lawyer October 11, 2012 at 12:50 pm #

    The “first filed” doctrine prevents a plaintiff from filing the same lawsuit in multiple jurisdictions. It is a common law rule in most states and in the federal courts. Courts will dismiss suits other than the first filed on an appropriate motion to dismiss.