This is a summary of some of the latest legal filings in birther cases from the Jack Ryan collection at Scribd. If you can’t remember the URL, it’s linked under the Docket menu on this site.
Taitz v Elections Commission (Indiana Superior Court)
- Order Denying Motion to Intervene (October 30). Keith Judd and Leah Lax petitioned the court to intervene in the case. Judge S. K. Reid denied the motion. No specifics given.
- Post-Trial Order Granting Judgment in Favor of the Indiana Election Commission and the Indiana Secretary of State on Plaintiffs’ Claim of Declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief (October 30). It appear that the Indiana Attorney General’s proposed order was signed as-is and without alteration. The money quote from this order is: “In the end, this Court is not ‘Wonderland’ and and ‘simply saying something is so does not make it so.’ Rhodes v. MacDonald, 2009 WL 299705, at *4,”
- Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against the Indiana Election Commission and the Indiana Secretary of State (October 30). Taitz had moved for summary judgment in her favor because the Defendants filed a response late. They didn’t. Motion denied.
Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi (Mississippi Federal Court)
- Defendants Barack H. Obama, II, Nancy Pelosi, Obama for America and the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee’s Notice of Action by Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Striking Motion of Orly Taitz to Coordinate and Consolidate Cases Under 28 USC § 1707(C)(II). Orly Taitz had attempted to consolidate three of her cases, Judd v. Obama in California (later dismissed), Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi and Taitz v. Sebelius in Texas. The Judicial Panel ordered Taitz’ petition stricken and the defendants listed here are providing a copy of that order to the Court in Mississippi. Orly’s motion to the JPML was stricken because she didn’t follow the rules.
Taitz v. Obama (Superior Court, Orange County, California)
- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Ex Parte Application of Plaintiff Orly Taitz for Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Third Party Respondent Occidental College; in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena; and in Support of Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $4,000 (November 1, 2012). Attorneys explain why Orly Taitz’ motion to compel them to produce Obama’s college records is frivolous and that they should be reimbursed for $4,000 in expenses responding to it. Occidental attorneys characterize Taitz’ action as “blatantly vexatious” and “an abuse of process” because the motion to compel came before the subpoena and because it gave one days’ notice when 20 was required. Occidental described Taitz as a “well-known and vexatious litigant.” A litany of defects in Taitz’ case are recounted in the 9-page brief. Also included were the Declarations of D. Jay Ritt and Carl Botterud that have some entertainment value of their own.