Ex parte hoc ergo propter hoc
That makes about as much sense as what Orly Taitz has done. Readers may recall my article of February 22 titled “Taitz makes amends” reporting that Taitz had filed an amended complaint in the case of Grinols v. Electoral College. In response to that article the same day Thinker observed:
She filed two parts to this amended complaint, but they were identical except for the last sentence. What she calls Part II ends with this sentence, which is not included in Part I, “On the other hand Defendant Obama was seeking to usurp the position of the U.S. President by virtue of fraud and forgery. By representing both Candidate Obama and the Ele”
Yep. It ends mid-word.
What’s really funny though is that despite the fact that she has apparently filed only half of her complaint, the federal defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and didn’t even mention that part of the complaint appears to be missing. LOL!
As I have pointed out often, Orly Taitz likes to copy what her opponents do (like removing a case to federal court) and in Grinols, the US Attorney filed an Ex Parte motion, so Taitz has filed one too on March 13, “Ex Parte Application to Correct the Filing and File Corrected First Amended Complaint” [ECF 94, link to Taitz web site PDF]. You see, it appears that Taitz has finally realized that her amended complaint was messed up and she wants to file it again, after the Government has already responded to it. That is, she wants to file a 2nd amended complaint. I can foresee a motion from the Defense opposing this.
In the mean time, Taitz is serving documents on various members of Congress, not through their attorney, a serious ethical violation.
One notes that Taitz continues to “serve” the President through the US Attorney that Taitz contends cannot represent him.