The federal defendants (the Electoral College and the Congress) through the US Attorney have moved to dismiss Orly Taitz’ first amended complaint in Grinols v. Electoral College. She has filed a motion in opposition.
Taitz’ first point is that the US Attorney cannot represent Barack Obama in this case. In that point, she is 100% correct. Since Taitz never served the President, he is not a party to the case, and needs no representation.
The next point is clouded by the general lack of commas which seems to be plaguing Taitz presently. Here is her claim, reduced in case and with commas added for clarity:
According to the Defendants, members of Congress and members of the Electoral College, they are not represented by the US Attorneys’ Office.
What that really means is that some members of Congress and of the Electoral College do not know about the lawsuit and that the US Attorney is representing them. Taitz claims that one member of the Electoral College (out of 538) doesn’t want the suit dismissed, but the Electoral College isn’t a body that can be sued anyway.
Taitz throws out two cases: Fulani v. Hogset to show that she has standing, and Cleaver v. Jordan to show that the Court has jurisdiction to ascertain the legitimacy of presidential candidates. I don’t know what Fulani v. Hogset says, but supposedly it justifies a minor candidate’s standing in an election case. However, when Taitz filed her first amended complaint, the original complaint became null and void, and since the election was over, none of her plaintiffs were candidates. The original Keyes v. Obama appeal made this abundantly clear (to everybody but Taitz). The Cleaver case (1968) did involve the legality of a state Secretary of State declaring a candidate ineligible and excluding him from the ballot (the candidate was Eldridge Cleaver and he was ineligible because he was too young). The California Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State could exclude someone from the ballot on account eligibility. The US Supreme Court declined to review the case. It said nothing about the court itself excluding someone from the ballot.
Taitz didn’t number her pages, and perhaps that is why at least one page appears twice (page 3 and 4).
Taitz does a backflip by saying that Obama’s election can be declared void because Senator Schield’s election was voided in 1849. What she didn’t quite catch, however, is that it was the US Senate that rejected Schield’s election, not a court.
John Jay, Soebarkah, forged ID’s…. 36 pages…