Orly Taitz, if she’s still going to try to be a lawyer, really ought to invest a few dollars and get herself a decent scanner. Her scans are barely readable, and sometimes not readable at all. An example is the cover pages she posted to her latest filings in Mississippi, one embedded along with clear parts at the end of this article.
It seems to me that there’s not a chance that Judge Wingate will fail to dismiss defendants Onaka and Fuddy at or soon after the hearing this Friday in Jackson. Their brief was masterfully written with iron-clad argument. A Mississippi federal court has no jurisdiction over defendants in Hawaii who have no presence or interests in Mississippi—no jurisdiction, no case. Nevertheless Taitz has filed an opposition brief to the motion to dismiss the Hawaii Defendants. Taitz inexplicably writes:
They availed themselves to the jurisdiction of the state1 of MS.
Taitz rants (“argues” is too kind a word) that by verifying Obama’s birth in Hawaii, they placed themselves under Mississippi jurisdiction.
Taitz also rejects the argument of the Hawaii defendants that appearing in Mississippi would be burdensome to them, saying “Defendants availed themselves to the jurisdiction of this court by certifying a forgery…” So that gets them free airline tickets or something? No, but Orly offers to fly to Hawaii to take depositions. The problem here, and in a later section about nationwide process of service, ignores the fact that Orly isn’t just trying to depose the Hawaii Defendants, she is suing them!
In response to the Hawaii Defendants statement that they have no agents in Mississippi, Taitz says the the Mississippi Democratic Party and Barack Obama are their agents in Mississippi. I won’t even try to explain how she gets there.
I was a little confused by what Orly meant when she said “There is no argument that RICO extends to Defendants Democrat Party of Mississippi and Secretary of State of Mississippi.” There is no argument on which side? Orly argues BOTH sides as to the Secretary of State. In her RICO statement (page 1) filed in this case Orly says:
Secretary of State and Democratic Party of Ms took part in RICO enterprise by covering up Obama’s forged IDs and all evidence provided to them by Plaintiffs in 2008 in Thomas v Hosemann and in 2012 by Taitz.
But earlier when she was objecting to the Secretary of State removing the case to federal court because of the RICO action, she wrote in a Letter to the Court (page 2):
Federal causes of action, namely RICO, cited by the Defendant [Secretary of State] in his notice of removal, does not even relate to this particular defendant and he has no standing to even raise this as a reason for removal. First Amended complaint clearly states2 that RICO cause of action does not relate to the Secretary of State.
It may not be apparent to the reader that at this point I have already spent over an hour on this article. It’s not that I have written all that much, but I had, for example, to find that letter to the court I just cited, and that took a while to find which document had what I needed. I had to review the First amended complaint, and at this point I have only looked at only about 11% of Orly’s total brief, and I haven’t done any research as to why a couple of cases Orly cited so far are distinguished from the present case. If I don’t want to comment on something, I just skip it. If the attorney for the Hawaii Defendants actually answers this thing point by point it will literally take days, and this money is coming (I think) of the pockets of Drs. Onaka and Fuddy, who as civil servants don’t make huge salaries. They deserve these costs reimbursed to them by Taitz because Taitz’ bringing them into this case is at best frivolous and at worse malicious.
You can read all 45 pages of Taitz’s brief below if you like. Taitz also moved for an emergency evidentiary hearing (41 more pages).
1The annotation “(sic)” is hereby included by reference to everything Taitz says.
2It actually states the opposite.