Main Menu

Corrected v. Amended? Taitz errs again

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.

image

27 Responses to Corrected v. Amended? Taitz errs again

  1. avatar
    john March 15, 2013 at 10:29 am #

    “One notes that Taitz continues to “serve” the President through the US Attorney that Taitz contends cannot represent him.”

    It is my understanding that Orly has no choice in this matter. Obama REFUSES to accepts SERVICE and INSISTS that he be SERVED through the US Attorney. But, as Orly points out he can’t use those attorneys. Nevertheless, it would be impossible for Orly to approach Obama directly, so she has no choice but to serve the US Attorney. Obama can state he wasn’t served but he was and is demanding to to use attorneies he not entitled to. Any way you cut it, Obama is playing games and evading service.

  2. avatar
    john March 15, 2013 at 10:45 am #

    Does this mean Orly has the means of taking legal action against the US lawyers who were in the court of Judge England. Maybe pergery, obstruction, ethical violations, lying

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=402573
    Press release: Taitz talks to 4 congressmen and multiple members of the media during CPAC. Congressmen are stating that the Department of Justice, who supposedly acted on their behalf in Grinols case never forwarded to them any documents, they were clueless.

  3. avatar
    Butterfly Bilderberg March 15, 2013 at 11:13 am #

    No, John. It means that Orly failed to serve the Congresscritters that she purports to have sued, and thus they had no notice of the suit. She sued “Congress” which even you can understand is an arm of the United States Government. When you sue Congress and Congressmen and -women, you are suing the United States. And the Attorney General is the legal representative of the United States and the U.S. Attorneys are his “law firm” in legal actions against the United States. So Orly has no action against them.

    They, on the other hand, have cause to complain about Orly’s egregious breach of ethics in contacting officials of the AG’s client, the United States, about the lawsuit. The one she failed to serve on them, did I mention that?

  4. avatar
    Yoda March 15, 2013 at 11:25 am #

    john:
    Does this mean Orly has the means of taking legal action against the US lawyers who were in the court of Judge England.Maybe pergery, obstruction, ethical violations, lying

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=402573
    Press release: Taitz talks to 4 congressmen and multiple members of the media during CPAC. Congressmen are stating that the Department of Justice, who supposedly acted on their behalf in Grinols case never forwarded to them any documents, they were clueless.

    Uh, No. If you recall, and one would hope that you do, the attorneys who were there indicated that they were there as a courtesy to the court because there had not been any service of the complaint. Further, and I hope you take note of this, the people she is talking to were not named individually as defendants, and if they had been, it would have been HER job to make sure they were served. More importantly, Orly likes to point out that she spoke to people were not told about her lawsuit and she implies, but does not state, that the people she spoke to supported her attempts to prevent the inauguration. You will note that she never directly asks them what their position would have been, or if she did, she does not tell you, her flying monkeys, what the answer was.

    I am also going to say this one more time, slowly just for you John, Judge Englund stated very clearly that his Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to decide the issue that was presented by your queen. While I realize that you think that is just a game, I assure you it is not. Subject matter jurisdiction is what gives the court the power to rule. When the Court dismisses the case, and it will, she can take it to the appeals court to argue the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, but not the merits.

    Here is the most important thing, because the Court has said that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction, nothing the attorneys from the DOJ said meant anything. They could have come and stipulated that Orly was right, and she would still lose. The President of the United States could have come into Court and admitted that he was not a natural born citizen and the Court would be powerless to do anything about it, other than report it to whoever he felt was necessary.

    John, aside from the fact that you are 100% wrong on the birther issue, is that you refuse to accept the fact that we have rules designed to have an efficient, orderly court system. Most of the time they work. They are not a game, they are the rules. The funniest thing is that for all the talk that Orly does about Nazi Germany, she WANTS our courts to act as if they were in Germany in the ’30s and ’40s by not protecting the rights of anyone she accuses of misconduct.

  5. avatar
    Yoda March 15, 2013 at 11:31 am #

    Butterfly Bilderberg: They, on the other hand, have cause to complain about Orly’s egregious breach of ethics in contacting officials of the AG’s client, the United States, about the lawsuit. The one she failed to serve on them, did I mention that?

    Butterfly, I know there was some discussion about that on TFB, was there a final consensus? Certainly an attorney who was acting professionally and ethically would not have done what she did, even if just to be on the safe side, but since they are not named defendants it was a little bit up in the air. Personally, I think the conduct does violate rules, at least in my jurisdiction. The funny thing is that she clearly attempted to violate the rules, because she believed these individuals are represented by counsel and that they are defendants, even if what she did is not technically a violation. But it certainly has the appearance of impropriety.

  6. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 15, 2013 at 11:49 am #

    John derps again.

  7. avatar
    Birther Weary March 15, 2013 at 12:12 pm #

    Butterfly Bilderberg:
    No, John.It means that Orly failed to serve the Congresscritters that she purports to have sued, and thus they had no notice of the suit.She sued “Congress” which even you can understand is an arm of the United States Government.

    I have seen no evidence to support that assumption about john.

  8. avatar
    richCares March 15, 2013 at 12:17 pm #

    John derps again
    yup
    see his “Maybe pergery, obstruction, ethical violations”
    does he mean purgatory

  9. avatar
    Thinker March 15, 2013 at 1:56 pm #

    In both of Taitz’s Judd cases last fall, she failed to file an electronic version of the complaint. In fact, Judge Carter dismissed the second Judd case as a sanction for that repeated display of incompetence. It is truly mind-boggling to me that she has once again screwed up a case because she can’t follow simple instructions.

  10. avatar
    Reality Check March 15, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

    I believe the consensus in that discussion was that there is an exception for public officials but that is completely unethical for her to contact Congress critters directly concerning the case. Orly and ethics have never been introduced.

    Has any party actually been served in this case? If not is there anyone for the U. S. Attorney to officially represent?

    Yoda: Butterfly, I know there was some discussion about that on TFB, was there a final consensus?

  11. avatar
    John Reilly March 15, 2013 at 2:21 pm #

    Let’s see. Dr. Taitz has not left a summons and complaint with the President, or with anyone who resides at the White House, or even with anyone who doesn’t reside there. And she has not filed a proof of service of whatever she did do. Sort of critical to her request for a default. Or critical to moving forward.

    On the other hand, Dr. Taitz has a constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of her grievances, no matter how wrong she may be. That seems to me to trump any lawyer rule about not contacting opposing parties directly.

  12. avatar
    AROD March 15, 2013 at 2:32 pm #

    John derps again and again and again (he is a little energizer bunny)..of course what does that make Taitz?

  13. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 15, 2013 at 4:18 pm #

    john: it would be impossible for Orly to approach Obama directly


    John, why do you keep ignoring the fact that she could try to serve him by US mail, but she hasn’t even tried that? Until she tries to serve the President by mail, she absolutely has no basis for suggesting that the President is avoiding service.

    As for the Secret Service, it is obvious they simply refused to allow the process service physical access to the residential quarters. They are not qualified to accept service for the President, nor do they speak for the President’s intentions with regard to service (or anything else).

    Many non-lawyers understand that. Any marginally competent attorney would know this.

  14. avatar
    Daniel March 15, 2013 at 8:00 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —
    John, why do you keep ignoring the fact that she could try to serve him by US mail, but she hasn’t even tried that?

    John is a birther…

    That which hurts to know… is ignored

  15. avatar
    Keith March 15, 2013 at 8:05 pm #

    J.D. Sue: John, why do you keep ignoring the fact that she could try to serve him by US mail, but she hasn’t even tried that? Until she tries to serve the President by mail, she absolutely has no basis for suggesting that the President is avoiding service.

    Or through his personal Attorney, not the Government’s Attorney.

  16. avatar
    Bob March 15, 2013 at 9:45 pm #

    Daniel: John is a birther…

    That which hurts to know… is ignored

    john is exhibiting all the signs of an acute case of fact-o-phobia.

  17. avatar
    ObiWanCannoli March 15, 2013 at 10:11 pm #

    I think everyone gives Orly less credit than deserved. She knows exactly what she is doing. In her lifelong quest to remove the “usurper” and find justice for the people of America (read FMs), Orly has been intentionally misrepresenting the facts and filing lawsuits riddled with errors. A properly served and well argued birther lawsuit by Orly will die of a miserable death in any US court. If that happens, she can’t claim the title of “Lady Liberty” and that she is a world famous civil rights attorney. Take a look at where Mario and the likes are now. They are hardly making a blip on Obot’s radar. Their attempts to unseat a democratically elected president went in vain, for following the laws on the book albeit for a misguided cause. Orly can’t have this. Her big ego will not allow that.

  18. avatar
    SluggoJD March 15, 2013 at 11:31 pm #

    john:
    “One notes that Taitz continues to “serve” the President through the US Attorney that Taitz contends cannot represent him.”

    It is my understanding that Orly has no choice in this matter.Obama REFUSES to accepts SERVICE and INSISTS that he be SERVED through the US Attorney.But, as Orly points out he can’t use those attorneys.Nevertheless, it would be impossible for Orly to approach Obama directly, so she has no choice but to serve the US Attorney.Obama can state he wasn’t served but he was and is demanding to to use attorneies he not entitled to.Any way you cut it, Obama is playing games and evading service.

    Enough with your stupid, ignorant BS.

    You really think Obama just sits around, all paranoid and sh!t, obsessing over this crap?? No f’n way – you’re either fake comedy relief, or a complete moron.

  19. avatar
    Paper March 16, 2013 at 12:19 am #

    Personal attorney? That sounds illegal. What is he trying to hide by using a *personal* attorney? And besides, Taitz clearly is trying to keep everything above board and objective; she’s not the one trying to make it personal. She’s just asking questions.

    See a whole list of her objective and insightful questions here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

    Keith: Or through his personal Attorney, not the Government’s Attorney.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 16, 2013 at 9:51 am #

    Until Orly starts thinking like a lawyer and not like John, she will never get to bat, much less win the game.

    J.D. Sue: John, why do you keep ignoring the fact that she could try to serve him by US mail, but she hasn’t even tried that? Until she tries to serve the President by mail, she absolutely has no basis for suggesting that the President is avoiding service.

  21. avatar
    Thinker March 17, 2013 at 1:18 pm #

    Judge England denied Taitz’s motion to amend her complaint, but not for the reason people were expecting:

    MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: The Court reviewed Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 69.) The Amended Complaint is 20 pages. There are no repeat pages as Plaintiffs allege in their ex parte application to amend their Complaint. (ECF No. 94.) When Plaintiffs initially filed their case, they received an Order Requesting Joint Status Report. (ECF No. 6.) Paragraph 6 of the Order Requesting Joint Status Report limits any briefs or papers to 20 pages. Any party wishing to file lengthier document must first seek relief from said page limitation requirement from the Court. In this case, Plaintiffs filed a 20 page Amended Complaint. As Plaintiffs have already reached the page limitation, the Court does not give leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ ex parte request (ECF No. 94) is denied.(Deutsch, S) (Entered: 03/15/2013)

  22. avatar
    Rickey March 17, 2013 at 2:25 pm #

    Thinker:
    Judge England denied Taitz’s motion to amend her complaint, but not for the reason people were expecting:

    So Orly failed to follow the rules – again.

  23. avatar
    Reality Check March 17, 2013 at 3:15 pm #

    John posts how Judge England is being mean to Orly in 3….2….1

    Where does Orly go from here? She can let her half (assed) First Amended Complaint ride and Judge England may rule on the motions or may let the hearing go as scheduled on 4/18. She will lose and may well face sanctions. She could file a Second Amended complaint, if the rules allow, and I am uncertain about that. Then the clock and service all starts over again. All this is in a case where the court has no jurisdiction whatsoever and concerning events that have long since occurred. Isn’t OrlyLaw amazing?

  24. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 17, 2013 at 6:58 pm #

    Thinker: Plaintiffs’ ex parte request (ECF No. 94) is denied.

    And that is the first mention of what the judge is denying exactly. One wonders whether the judge’s implicit emphasis on the term “ex parte” is a hint to the defendants. “Look guys, this nutter is trying to do all sorts of funny stuff without you being involved. Please ask for sanctions.”

  25. avatar
    Kiwiwriter March 17, 2013 at 10:12 pm #

    John, the judges have told Orly how to serve the documents, and she refuses to play by the rules of procedure.

    As Judge Chamberlain V. Haller says in “My Cousin Vinnie,” “This is why we have a procedure. And even in Alabama, it is as sophisticated as anything in New York.”

    If she simply followed the procedure, she would at least have a shot at a hearing.

    Then she would get shot down for her silly ideas, not for her inability to follow procedure.

  26. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 19, 2013 at 2:05 am #

    FYI, Orly has filed an “Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion to Correct the First Amended Complaint Due to Flagrant Error of Fact”. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Grinols-filed-Ex-parte-to-recon-denial-to-correct-FAC-due-to-error-by-the-court.pdf

    Her motion challenges Judge England’s recent minute order (set forth in full above by Thinker), wherein it states that page limits were set in an Order Requesting Joint Status Report in ECF No. 6. According to Orly, “This is a flagrant error of fact. No such order was ever issued.”

    I’m not sure whether Orly actually received that particular order. Regardless, Judge England has a standing order setting those page limits, and attorneys are expected to be familiar with and comply with a Judge’s standing orders. http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Steph-MCE%20More%20Cal%20Info_Rev%2011-02-12(1).pdf

    Also, General Counsel for the House of Reps wrote a letter to Orly stating why the Reps will not be responding to her subpoenas. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Answer-from-the-Deputy-General-Counsel-of-the-US-Congress.pdf

  27. avatar
    The Magic M March 19, 2013 at 6:24 am #

    Kiwiwriter: Then she would get shot down for her silly ideas, not for her inability to follow procedure.

    Orly has had a couple of hearings and has humiliated herself in each and every one of them. It’s quite clear she never wants to have another hearing again (which is why she is suddenly so keen on getting “stays of proceedings” whereas she was all “Obama tries to delay the issue” in the years before).
    Every new hearing increases the chance that she loses followers. She probably saw a massive dive in visits on her blog days after she published videos of her “performance” in previous hearings.