Main Menu

As the birthers turn or “Ex Lax”

November 7

Mississippi plaintiff Dr. Laurie Roth, motorcycle enthusiast, erstwhile presidential candidate and talk show host, wrote a letter to Judge Wingate in Mississippi in the case of Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi, asking to be removed a plaintiff.

Roth, not having filed any documents in the case, nor to my knowledge even  signed the “First amended complaint” that added her as a plaintiff, seemed to be just along for the ride as Orly Taitz, the lead plaintiff, attempted to purge the country of people who have slighted her. It’s not as simple as just asking, now that the Defense has responded to the complaint (and an Answer was filed 4/25/2012). The Defense can exact conditions, and one of the conditions they might exact is in the withdrawal letter itself, in the phrase:

I…have no intention of becoming a plaintiff in any other legal action against President Barack Obama.

Whether Roth is being candid with the court pleading medical problems and financial difficulty is no concern of mine, but it is rather odd-seeming that she didn’t include a doctor’s note to back up her claims.

November 25

A second plaintiff, Leah Lax, states in a filing docketed by the Court today that she sent an email on July 3 to Taitz asking that she be withdrawn as a plaintiff in the case, and says now that the continuing inclusion of her name on documents filed by Orly Taitz is “Fraud,” and noting that the phrase “pro se” is not present after Lax’s name on those filings. Since Orly Taitz was not representing Lax, it is unclear why Lax asked Taitz to remove  her as a Plaintiff in the case, rather than asking the Court to do this (I could find nothing in the record of Lax filing anything with the court in July). In the December 6,  2011, engagement letter between the two it was made clear that Lax was not being represented by Taitz in states where Taitz was not admitted to practice, but was in California and states where Taitz was admitted pro hac vice.

Lax contends that it was never her intent to be part of the RICCO (sic) case against Obama (the First amended complaint in Mississippi where Lax was added as as a Plaintiff). However, in the engagement letter, Lax stated that she would be a co-plaintiff or represented by Taitz in all filings against Obama in all 50 states. Lax alleges that she didn’t sign the Mississippi complaint, but that Taitz “pasted her signature” on it. I note that the Mississippi complaint was not signed by Lax at all, only marked with “/s/”.

Lax also contends that Taitz made medical information about Lax public in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). That last charge is bogus because Lax is not a patient of Orly Taitz and so HIPAA doesn’t apply1; however, even though Taitz was not representing Lax in Mississippi, she was in other states, and this disclosure, if it occurred, could well be a violation of attorney-client confidentiality.

generic computer hacker imageLike Orly Taitz, Lax is angry with commenters at the Fogbow for making fun of her. Lax seems to be confused, believing that Mississippi attorney Sam Begley is a member of the Fogbow forum and can tell folks there to be nice; Begley, to my knowledge, does not have a Fogbow account. In what may be a case of libel per se, Lax identifies a particular on-line screen name, SueDB, who posts here and at the Fogbow as the hacker and “identity thief” and says “her IP address matches the person who allegedly broke into my e commerce account.” It would seem that this IP address match is not actually based on evidence, but upon belief. Lax perhaps gives a hint to the reason for her interest in anti-Obama litigation when she accuses, in another email filed with the court, that the Fogbow members “consist of all Muslims.”

Lax asks for unspecified sanctions against Taitz for using her name in court filings after July 3. She also intends to press charges against whoever hacked her email account and sent out porn to her contact list, although the connection of this allegation to the Mississippi lawsuit is unclear. Read the Lax motion:

MS 2012-11-30 ECF 76 – TvDPM – Motion to Remove Lax and to Sanction Orly Taitz

Exhibits:

  • Exhibit A (July 3 letter from Lax to Taitz disclosing medical condition and asking to be removed as a plaintiff from the suit.)
  • Exhibit B (Montana letter indicating Lax is a write-in candidate for President)
  • Exhibit C (Lax email to Begley regarding Fogbow and disclosure of her medical treatment and threat of prosecution for hacking and identity thief (sic).)
  • Exhibit D (Copy of email allegedly sent by Fogbow hacker to people in Lax’s address book.)
  • Exhibit E (Photocopy of envelope from Lax addressed to the District Court in Mississippi.)

1I have some professional expertise with HIPAA, so I am expressing an informed opinion here.

Print Friendly

, ,

28 Responses to As the birthers turn or “Ex Lax”

  1. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 30, 2012 at 3:09 pm #

    Rats leaving the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Too late, I would say.

  2. avatar
    Rickey November 30, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    I believe that what happened here is that Roth, Lax and MacLeran (and probably Fedorka as well) believed that Orly was representing them in Mississippi. Of course, Orly couldn’t get pro hac vice status in Mississippi, so all of the plaintiffs are pro se. I doubt that any of them (other than Fedorka, who lives in Mississippi) thought that they would actually have to appear in Mississippi or that they could be personally liable for attorney fees and costs. Now they are all trying to jump off of Orly’s sinking ship.

    Lax should file a complaint with the California Bar.

  3. avatar
    JRC November 30, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    It’s a bit unrelated, and I’m sure talked about here and other anti-birther sites. But honestly if there was anything to the birther moment, people with actual money. Rush, Glenn, the Donald would be filing these challenges. I just don’t get these birther idiots. As many people with money that want Obama gone, they would have used this route if it had any legal foundation. It is ironic that a birther is asking for sanctions against another birther. Maybe will be see some birther on birther lawsuits. lol

  4. avatar
    JRC November 30, 2012 at 3:40 pm #

    Rickey:
    I believe that what happened here is that Roth, Lax and MacLeran (and probably Fedorka as well) believed that Orly was representing them in Mississippi. Of course, Orly couldn’t get pro hac vice status in Mississippi, so all of the plaintiffs are pro se. I doubt that any of them (other than Fedorka, who lives in Mississippi) thought that they would actually have tro appear in Mississippi or that they could be personally liable for attorney fees and costs. Now they are all trying to jump off of Orly’s sinking ship.

    Lax should file a complaint with the California Bar.

    Well Orly was smart enough to have them sign a release if I understand correctly. Their stupidity will not get them out of being sanctioned if the judge orders such in my opinion.

  5. avatar
    Paul November 30, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

    “Birther on Birther”… that’s HAWWWWTT!@!#

  6. avatar
    Birther Weary November 30, 2012 at 4:52 pm #

    Don’t any of these idiots who get involved with Taitz realize that nothing good has ever come out of that association for any of them?

  7. avatar
    ASK Esq November 30, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

    Really, is there anything better than birther karma?

  8. avatar
    JoZeppy November 30, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

    JRC: Well Orly was smart enough to have them sign a release if I understand correctly. Their stupidity will not get them out of being sanctioned if the judge orders such in my opinion.

    A release probably won’t get Orly off the hook. Lax clearly was under the impression she was getting legal representation. That is enough to establish an attorney client relationship. In addition to unauthorized practice of law, she fundamentally misrepresented the nature of her representation. She was then discharged by her client, and continued to persue the cause using her client’s name. So there are various levels of fraud – on the court, on her client. I don’t think any court will honor a release covering acts of fraud. My guess is if Lax persues this, this very well may be the Orly screw up that gets her license pulled or suspended.

  9. avatar
    Rickey November 30, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    JRC: Well Orly was smart enough to have them sign a release if I understand correctly.Their stupidity will not get them out of being sanctioned if the judge orders such in my opinion.

    I agree with JoZeppy, although I would like to see the release which Lax and the others may have signed.

    If Orly agreed to represent them in Mississippi, she was agreeing to practice law without a license because she is not admitted in Mississippi and she did not have a sponsoring attorney in Mississippi.

    If she listed the other plaintiffs as pro se without their informed consent, she committed legal malpractice. Did she advise them that they had to represent themselves? Did she warn them about the potential consequences if they lost the lawsuit? I believe that they were under the impression that they were just lending Orly their names and that they would not have to do anything else.

    Begley and Tepper filed their reply brief today. I am convinced that they are going to ask the Court to bring down the hammer on Orly.

  10. avatar
    Joe Acerbic November 30, 2012 at 6:55 pm #

    Y’all are talking as if California had a non-zombie bar association…

  11. avatar
    JoZeppy November 30, 2012 at 7:12 pm #

    Joe Acerbic: Y’all are talking as if California had a non-zombie bar association…

    There are very few things that a bar association will come down on attorneys for. Being sloppy with client money is the big one. Screwing your clients over in other random ways (other than actually “screwing” your client…that, depending on the state, is still ok, or at least usually not worth much more than a strongly worded letter from the bar) can draw the attention of the bar association. Up until now, Orly’s mostly been incompetent, and vexatious litigant. Here, we have her being fundamentally dishonest to her clients, unauthorized practice of law, a host of potential fraud claims against her, and opposing counsel that is perfectly willing to hold her feet to the fire. It very well may be the perfect storm we’ve all been waiting for.

  12. avatar
    Bob November 30, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    Leah tells Orly, “I love you but we’ve grown apart.”

    Can Orly move on? Or will she put up a fight for the co-plaintiff (or whatever) she loves?

    Stay tuned as . . .

    As The Birther Turns

  13. avatar
    gorefan November 30, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

    Bob: Leah tells Orly, “I love you but we’ve grown apart.”

    Taitz: “Why is it, my old friend, that you’ve moved so far away from me?”

    Lax: “All motion is relative, Orly. Maybe it’s you who’ve moved away by standing still.”

  14. avatar
    US Citizen November 30, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

    …when suddenly Josef Taitz walks in.

    “WHO is that in your dental chair!!??”

    Orly: “It’s… it’s.. Charles Lincoln the 3rd”

    CL3: “Hi Mr. Taitz.. we were just discussing legal tacts.”

    Joe: “Without your clothes on?”

  15. avatar
    RuhRoh December 1, 2012 at 1:37 am #

    How does this agreement between Taitz and Lax influence the current situation, if at all? http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Consent-Leah-Lax.pdf

    “I expressly waive all liability claims against Ms. Taitz and any and all entities affiliated with her, arising out of representation of me.”

    I wouldn’t count on Orly to draft any competent legal document, so this may signify absolutely nothing. Interesting though, isn’t it, that when Lax was ordered to appear in court her first response said nothing at all about having severed ties with Taitz in July 2012, or having been unaware that the case was even still alive-let alone expanded into RICO action, or that Taitz had been copying Lax’s signature onto numerous pleadings without Lax’s knowledge. Nope, none of that until this latest filing.

    That entire document is hilarious–especially the part where she contradicts herself regarding Obama’s citizenship (4).

  16. avatar
    Norbrook December 1, 2012 at 6:46 am #

    JoZeppy: She was then discharged by her client, and continued to persue the cause using her client’s name.So there are various levels of fraud – on the court, on her client.I don’t think any court will honor a release covering acts of fraud.My guess is if Lax persues this, this very well may be the Orly screw up that gets her license pulled or suspended.

    I’d be a lot more optimistic about that if Orly hadn’t already done the same thing (Rhodes v McDonald), been sanctioned by the court, and not much happened. Admittedly, there she was admitted pro hac, unlike this case, but she still continued it after she had been discharged by her “client.” Her record since then – particularly her (ahem) pro se appearances – should have been a clue to the bar.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2012 at 9:44 am #

    I have had time to process the exhibits attached to Lax’s filing, and as a result have updated, enhanced, clarified, developed and otherwise improved the second section of the article as it deals with Leah Lax. Interested persons may want to read it again.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2012 at 9:52 am #

    Looking more closely, Lax alleges that she never intended to be part of the RICCO (sic) case from the beginning. She says that Orly Taitz “pasted her signature” on all of the complaints bearing her name. Since Taitz does not represent Lax in Mississippi, one could argue (and I would argue) that Lax was never a party to this case in the first place. Lax did not sign the complaint (Taitz signed it with “/s/” but was not representing Lax in Mississippi), Lax never appeared in a filing, nor in court. In my non-expert opinion. How could she be a party to the case?

    The engagement letter shows Lax agreeing to be a generic plaintiff in all 50 states, but agreeing to be a plaintiff is not the same thing as being a plaintiff.

    JoZeppy: She was then discharged by her client, and continued to persue the cause using her client’s name. So there are various levels of fraud – on the court, on her client. I don’t think any court will honor a release covering acts of fraud. My guess is if Lax persues this, this very well may be the Orly screw up that gets her license pulled or suspended.

  19. avatar
    SueDB December 1, 2012 at 10:11 am #

    Leah Lax, the smoother mover.
    Hi Doc,
    I just wanted to add that she’s spreading libel around the net. She has insulted my hacking skills, and tried to diminish my high standing in the Black Hat and Obot community.
    Accusing me of leaving evidence as simple and stupid as my IP address behind is just the last straw. If I was there she wouldn’t know it until the sky fell. (NADT) The website is much easier. Too many big holes in hosting programs. {snicker}
    None of her crap is that interesting anyway. Meh…
    Someone at the Fogbow mentioned that it was a toss up as to which one was the crazier between the Smoother Mover (great campaign slogan btw) and that Orly woman.

  20. avatar
    Reality Check December 1, 2012 at 10:16 am #

    You make a good point Doc. I suppose it will depend on whether Judge Wingate believes she was unaware of what was being filed in her name for so long and only found out about the case recently. I believe each of the defendants was emailing her copies of their motions all along so she was either ignoring them or was not receiving them. I assume this is the same email address she claims was hacked.

    The way Taitz treats “plaintiffs” was going to blow up in her face eventually. Treating her clients like pawns in a game is nothing new. She has been doing this since she filed her first case representing someone other than herself in early 2009 when she removed Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson from Barnett v Obama without their consent. They engaged Gary Kreep to represent them and stay on the case. It was only their mutual hatred for Obama and a desire to go forward with the case that kept them from filing a complaint against Orly.

    Orly then moved on to military plaintiffs. She practically destroyed the careers of Connie Rhodes and Stephan Cook. Rhodes came to her senses in time and fired Orly on her way to Iraq. Cook lost his security clearance and his job with a defense contractor.

    Orly reminds me of a cartoon-like inebriated driver who keeps getting into accidents and it is always the passengers who get maimed. She walks away without a scratch. We all know in real life that will not continue to be the case.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Looking more closely, Lax alleges that she never intended to be part of the RICCO (sic) case from the beginning. She says that Orly Taitz “pasted her signature” on all of the complaints bearing her name.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2012 at 10:21 am #

    I had added this to my recent article update. I wasn’t going to mention your name, but since you posted a comment, I’ll add it to the article.

    So my theoretical legal question is, can you libel someone in a court filing, or is that somehow a protected exception?

    SueDB: She has insulted my hacking skills, and tried to diminish my high standing in the Black Hat and Obot community.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2012 at 10:36 am #

    The timeline:

    April 12: First Amended Complaint (where Leah Lax was added as a plaintiff)
    April 15: EMERGENCY petition by Taitz in which she claims to have “served all parties”
    April 24: Secretary of State notice of removal to federal court, email service to Lax
    July 3: Lax email to Taitz requesting removal.

    The email address used by the MS Secretary of State for Lax on April 24 is the same one used by Lax as the return address in her email to Taitz on July 3.

    Reality Check: You make a good point Doc. I suppose it will depend on whether Judge Wingate believes she was unaware of what was being filed in her name for so long and only found out about the case recently. I believe each of the defendants was emailing her copies of their motions all along so she was either ignoring them or was not receiving them. I assume this is the same email address she claims was hacked.

  23. avatar
    Reality Check December 1, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    Doc

    Thanks for the timeline. I think it is clear that Judge Wingate’s order for all the plaintiffs to appear is because he suspected something is rotten in Denmark (actually Moldova) with Orly and her fellow mystery plaintiffs.

    I am astounded that Lax didn’t follow up to see that Orly had not acted on her request to remove her from the case. If I were plaintiff in a lawsuit in federal court I would damn well know if I were still a plaintiff. I suppose having health issues is somewhat of an excuse but still… So, Lax thinks Taitz is her attorney and sends her an email saying get me off this case and figures it is all done. Meanwhile Taitz knowing she cannot represent Lax just does nothing and leaves Lax hanging out to dry. This all makes me dizzy.

  24. avatar
    Bob December 1, 2012 at 11:40 am #

    Lax’s petition to put her name on the ballot from November 2011:

    http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/put-leah-lax-s-name-on-the-ballot/signatures.html

    Out of 39 signatures, at least four are fake and one of them is Lax’s.

    Fake Sharon “Harpy” Rondeau’s message reads: “Bigots unite!”

  25. avatar
    Butterfly Bilderberg December 1, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The timeline:

    April 12: First Amended Complaint (where Leah Lax was added as a plaintiff)
    April 15: EMERGENCY petition by Taitz in which she claims to have “served all parties”
    April 24: Secretary of State notice of removal to federal court, email service to Lax
    July 3: Lax email to Taitz requesting removal.

    The email address used by the MS Secretary of State for Lax on April 24 is the same one used by Lax as the return address in her email to Taitz on July 3.

    By the time Lax requested Orly to remove her name from the suit, two of the Defendants had filed their Answers. At that point Lax could not simply be “removed” without a stipulation or by filing a motion. Her mistake was (1) getting involved in Orly’s idiot suits in the first place, (2) trusting that Orly was “representing” her and looking out for her interests, and (3) not contacting the Defendants’ counsel in July and requesting them to stipulate to her withdrawal.

    Too late now. As they say, lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

  26. avatar
    Rickey December 1, 2012 at 10:40 pm #

    RuhRoh:
    How does this agreement between Taitz and Lax influence the current situation, if at all? http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Consent-Leah-Lax.pdf

    “I expressly waive all liability claims against Ms. Taitz and any and all entities affiliated with her,arising out of representation of me.”

    If I were Lax, I would argue that the agreement is not valid because Orly couldn’t legally represent her in Mississippi, so Orly’s actions did not arise out of her representation of Lax.

    Of course, by this time it should be obvious to any unbiased observer that Orly has de facto been representing all of the plaintiffs in the Mississippi case. Perhaps Judge Wingate will take notice.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 2, 2012 at 2:40 am #

    This article has been updated to remove the erroneous statement that Leah Lax’s signature does not appear in the Court filing of the First amended complaint. It does; it’s just mislabeled as Brian Fedorka’s signature.

    I have also moved comments regarding Orly’s response to Lax to a new article, Mississippi Boiling.

  28. avatar
    misha marinsky December 2, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

    Butterfly Bilderberg: As they say, lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

    Except Angel. Please.

    You have never seen an Afghan hound like her.