Main Menu

Archive | February, 2013

Birds of a feather: Arpaio, Klayman

This story is just too weird. It started off as a fairly simple report that, as you probably know, there is a recall effort directed against the newly-reelected Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A group (Citizens To Protect Fair Election Results, LLC) has formed to fight the recall in court, and the folks in that group come from the Surprise Arizona Tea Party, the same group that got Joe Arpaio doing the birther thing in the first place (shown below with Jerome Corsi on the left).

image

It gets a little more curious, and a little more on-topic for this web site, when we find that the legal work for the anti-recall group is being done by birther attorney Larry Klayman. Hmmm, birther, birther.

Generally, I’m not a fan of recall elections unless some significant new fact comes to light, but the people of Arizona will do what they will do. The fact that Arpaio has left uninvestigated hundreds of sex crimes while pursuing Obama’s birth certificate is certainly grounds for recall, except that the voters of Arizona already knew that when reelecting Arpaio.

Now where truth becomes stranger than fiction: the Phoenix NewTimes Blogs discovered a court finding in Ohio that attorney Klayman had inappropriately touched his children. NewTimes said:

What are the chances that a lawyer who was found by a court to have “inappropriately touched” children would try to stop the recall of a county sheriff whose agency failed to properly investigate more than 400 sex crimes?

Now, I’m not a fan of open-ended questions either, but it certainly is strange to say the least. There are several details and nuances that I’m not cutting and pasting here in hopes that readers interested in the topic will follow the links below.

Read more at the Phoenix NewTimes Blogs:

Taitz makes amends

So we all remember Orly Taitz’ lawsuit in California, Grinols v. Electoral College, where she, several minor party candidates and one Democratic presidential candidate in one state were suing to prevent Barack Obama from becoming President, by stopping California from sending its electoral votes to the Senate, stopping the Congress from counting the electoral votes, and preventing Obama from taking the oath of office. The US District Court for the Eastern District of California didn’t stay any of those things and they all took place, making a hash of what Taitz was trying to do in her lawsuit.

The State of California moved to dismiss as to them on the grounds of mootness, but before the Court could rule on that, Taitz has filed her First Amended Complaint (Feb. 11). Given the significant change in the landscape between her original complaint and the subsequent inauguration of Barack Obama for his second term as President, one would expect that the Amended Complaint (embedded below) would take this into account.

First Taitz emphasizes (using boldface type) that Barack Obama is being sued in his individual capacity, as a candidate for office, not as President. Tait should have learned from the loss of her appeal of Barnett v. Obama that after the election persons are no longer candidates. Taitz claims Obama is in default as to the original complaint. Of course the court doesn’t give special consideration for boldfaced type. Taitz doesn’t understand that once she files the amended complaint, the original complaint goes away and the court isn’t going to declare Obama in default under it, even if she had served him with that original complaint (which she did not). She should know that about the amended complaint, since she lost an appeal in Liberi v. Taitz for that very reason (or she should know it because she went to law school).

The first novelty in the case is the expanded list of aliases for the President:

  • Barack (Barry) Soetoro
  • Barack Hussein Soebarkah
  • Barack Hussein Obama
  • Barack A. Obama
  • Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel
  • S. A. Dunham (?)

Other defendants are:

  • The Governor of California
  • The Electoral College
  • The Congress

Taitz recounts her fantasies about Obama as if they were fact, but I guess the meat of the matter is what relief Taitz is now seeking. She is seeking declaratory relief. Specifically, Taitz is asking the Court to declare that President Obama fraudulently applied to be a candidate in California. I always thought (but then I am not a lawyer) that declaratory relief was something to prevent an imminent future controversy and that what Taitz is trying to do is moot. But she clearly demonstrates that it is not with the bald faced bold faced declaration: “Declaratory relief in this case is not moot.” The actual discussion of this point doesn’t seem to have any further legal argument, but is only a narrative of what happened from Taitz’ point of view. Nowhere does Taitz lay out how the Plaintiffs have standing to request a declaratory judgment.

The other prong of her lawsuit, and this is where the Governor of California comes in, is an unrelated matter concerning the voter rolls in California. Public records show that large number of California voter registration records are incomplete in one way or another, for example lacking valid birth dates of the registrants. Taitz requests injunctive relief to “clean up the rolls” and the entire description of this injunctive relief is inserted in the following hypothetical:

Unless there is a declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to clean up California roles and having a special election, the same invalid and/or fraudulent voter registrations will be used in further elections.

Taitz never details what the special election is for. I am further at a loss as to why the Electoral College (which is not an entity that can be sued) nor the Congress are parties. Taitz herself has no standing to sue Barack Obama, but she tags on anyway.

I won’t go into the punctuation and grammar, which is bad. The whole thing is in insult to the Court, so sloppily it is constructed and argued. It’s pathetic.

Read the First Amended Complaint:

Continue Reading →

Tricksters taunt Taitz terribly

I reject the idea of “blaming the victim” in most circumstances. Orly Taitz, on the other hand, has actively censored reasonable and factual comments on her web site for the purpose, it would seem, of making her seem a better attorney than she is, and to make what she is doing in the anti-Obama realm more effective than it is. There is a certain element of justice when the targets of her censorship exploit her own vanity for the purpose of ridiculing her.

The moderated strike back

One of the long-time characteristics of the Taitz web site is the publication of comments of fawning praise for Taitz. One memorable comment from Judith called Taitz “Lady Liberty” back in early 2009.

For several months now, Taitz commenters have combined fawning praise with hidden insults in the form of fake names that allude to insulting or sexually-explicit phrases. (Let me hasten to add that I personally have not done this.) Here’s a recent example:

image

Here’s a short collection of some of the other spoof commenter names from the Taitz web site this week:

  • Gaye Barr (gay bar)
  • Phillip McKraq (fill up my crack)
  • Ricardo Cabeza (dick head, sp.)
  • Dick Kerr (dick her)
  • F. Hart (fart)
  • Verga Grande (big dick, sp.)
  • Arnie Benedict (Benedict Arnold)
  • Enorme Pene (huge penis, sp.)
  • Ben Dover (bend over)
  • Mosca De Cerdos (pigs fly, sp.)
  • Lt. Col. Hugh Jhass (retired) (huge ass)
  • Jacky Hoff (jack off)
  • Pyle F. Schit (pile of ….)

There are others I suspect, but that I couldn’t figure out.

Leftover news: Strunk withdraws, US responds

In leftover news from yesterday, Christopher-Earl: Strunk filed a handwritten note on a printed email with the Circuit Court of Appeals in DC, withdrawing his appeal in his FOIA lawsuit. He cites financial limitations. Strunk also faces an unknown amount of sanctions from previous lawsuits in New York. He says the the government has probably destroyed all the documents he wants anyway. The Court dismissed the appeal following his request.

In the case of Grinols v. Electoral College, Orly Taitz’ attempt to rewrite the 2012 election in California, the US Government moved last Friday to dismiss the complaint as to the Federal Defendants (the California State defendants previously filed a motion to dismiss). The US Attorney notes that while named in the lawsuit, President Obama does not appear to have been served with the complaint, and as such is not a party to the lawsuit.

Read the Government’s brief: Continue Reading →