Main Menu

Taitz multiplies delays in Mississippi

On the eve of a decision by federal Judge Wingate in Mississippi, Orly Taitz filed something that delayed the decision in the long-running Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi case, including punking comments from her own web site. Now she’s filed even more “stuff” with a motion today for leave to file new facts and opinions (h/t to NBC).

Her motion is accompanied by one item we pretty much expected, the Dissenting Opinion by Chief Justice Moore from the Alabama Supreme Court decision in the case of McInnish v. Chapman. She thinks this minority opinion is something the Court should look at. While on the surface this might seem to be a tiny help to Taitz since Judge Moore opined that the presidential eligibility questions do not become moot after the election because the same issues are likely to repeat, and his view that in Alabama the Secretary of State has an obligation under law to investigate questionable candidates, it actually undermines her position because Judge Moore further states that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear eligibility cases, citing Hutchinson v. Miller:

Had the framers wished the federal judiciary to umpire election contexts, they could have so provided. Instead, they reposed primary trust in popular representatives and in political correctives.

The second item is one less familiar, the oral argument in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Lindsay v. Bowen case. In this case California Secretary of State Bowen denied a 2012 ballot position to Peace and Freedom Party presidential candidate Peta Lindsay because she was under age. Bowen argues that she has the authority to do this. Taitz argues that in Mississippi, the Secretary of State must investigate candidates and exclude ineligible ones.

While neither of these two items is precedential, I can understand why someone grasping at straws might submit them; however, what took me totally by surprise was the appearance of

The Orly Taitz Super PAC

“No one expects the Orly Taitz Super PAC!”

Orly Taitz on Los Angeles

Item three on Orly’s list is a screen shot from the Orly Taitz Super PAC1. She writes:

Further evidence of RICO conspiracy to cause financial damage to Taitz by fraud—a printout of a website, “Orly Taitz for AG PAC” (Exhibit 1) which is collecting campaign contributions supposedly to assist Orly Taitz campaign for AG, while in reality the owners and operators of this web site have no connection to Orly Taitz and any money collected do not benefit her campaign.

The concept of a PAC is that they are not supposed to be connected to or coordinated with the candidate. The Taitz Super PAC is quite up front about this:

The Orly Taitz Super PAC is an independent political action committee, not coordinated with any candidate. Donations to the PAC will be used to influence voter opinion on issues that are of concern to California voters in the upcoming Attorney General race.

Of course in a universe where everything revolves around Taitz, I guess Super PAC’s have a different rule. My question is: What does that have to do with the Mississippi case? Taitz does not allege that any of her named RICO defendants is behind the Super PAC.

I gave the Orly Taitz Super PAC only slight mention earlier in the month. The site has been evolving slowly with improved graphics and an occasional story highlighting some of the wackier aspects of Taitz’ run for “CA AG.” One thing that has changed is its donations page. In an earlier version, they asked for donations by mail (but never gave a mailing address). Now they talk about receiving donations through groups of local supporters:

We have been overwhelmed by the interest shown in the Taitz race for Attorney General. Significant direct donations have been received through civic and patriotic organizations across the state and this will be our primary means of fundraising. Please continue your support, as we continue to build organizational relationships throughout the state. Be ready when your name is called!

To date, there is still no way to make online donations to the Super PAC and this is being explained by security concerns, so either these guys are pretty paranoid, or it’s some kind of satire. There are alleged supporter statements claiming that donations have occurred, but this could not of course be verified.

Taitz also cites Internet rumors:

Taitz, also, provides copies of comments made by her supporters and donors, reflecting that aside from a bogus Super PAC, someone created a bogus foundation with a name slightly different from the name of Taitz foundation and is collecting money, whereby depriving Taitz of donations and contributions by virtue of fraud.

The Orly Taitz foundation is “Defend Our Freedoms Foundation,” and the other is “Protect Our Freedoms Foundation.” The only search engine hit for “Protect our Freedoms Foundation” is back to to Orly’s site. Taitz, in her typical disregard for her readers, publishes the email and IP address of the commenter. Taitz claims on her web site [link to Taitz web site, March 15 article] that her Google+ profile had been changed and her email address switched to someone trying to lure donations. (I think it more likely that Taitz herself just fat-fingered her email address when she created her Google+ profile, entering orlytaitz@gmail.com rather than orly.taitz@gmail.com.) I’m not a Google+ wonk, but it looks like both email addresses go to the same Google+ profile (orly.taitz and orlytaitz).

It is possible that the email about donations is a hoax, and for that matter the Orly Taitz Super PAC could be a hoax as well. If so, that’s at least three hoaxes that made it into the Mississippi case.

Update:

A motion in opposition has been filed by the Democratic defendants. It begins:

Plaintiff Taitz, who has been an attorney for over 11 years, in her latest motion seeks to introduce what she describes as three items of “additional evidence and rulings supporting her opposition to defendants motion to dismiss” [sic]. The items in questions are neither evidence nor rulings; they are also wholly irrelevant to the disposition of the fully-briefed dispositive motions.

Note that in this opposition the Alabama case is styled McInnish v. Bennett. Bennett is the current Secretary of State of Alabama and has been substituted for Beth Chapman as the defendant in that action.


1The screen shot in the Taitz filing is an older version of the Super PAC site. The one in the article is the current one (27-March-2014).

Print Friendly

, , ,

47 Responses to Taitz multiplies delays in Mississippi

  1. avatar
    Bonsall Obot March 27, 2014 at 9:46 pm #

    I’m falling in love all over again!

  2. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 27, 2014 at 10:29 pm #

    Ever since Oily Trates emerged as the premier Constitutional Dentist in this country, we have been treated to a perpetual veritable legal crap-bomb of misconceived cases, based on misunderstood or mistakenly misapplied law, as the judicial system’s tolerance for frivolous multiple appeals is repeatedly misused to dis-inform the public in what is transparently just a partisan political attempt to overturn a perfectly legal Presidential election.

    I still remember incredulously informing my wife, of the insane premise of one of Ladle Libertine’s first cases in which she tried to claim that a Bush Presidential Order designed to coordinate the vetting of employees in various departments of the Executive Branch, “pertained” to verifying the “fitness of employees of the Executive Branch” and as Obama’s taxpayer/employer she needed access to all of his personal records to evaluate his “fitness” to continue to serve as POTUS!

    Surely, any legitimate law school which had spawned such an incompetent and law-disrespecting menace would, upon discovering this embarrassment, immediately dispatch an assassin to begin the process of recovering the institution’s academic reputation. But no. She buzz-saws ahead with blunder after blunder, thrilling the few remaining delusional Birthers, and making the advances of civilization seem all the more amazing in their ability to have presumably prevailed over previous similarly deluded individuals.

    One wonders what it is, exactly, that goes through her mind during the thrashing about that produces these legal comedies of errors. I think the only component of her thinking that we can safely assume with much certainty, is that she must have a deep-seated and abiding hatred or contempt for Law, period. She seems to see it only as a shield for her and a weapon to be used against others.

  3. avatar
    Plantmaster March 27, 2014 at 10:46 pm #

    “…a motion . . . for leave to file new facts and opinions (h/t to NBC).”

    New facts?!?!?! There are no “new facts.” Even the fact that Orly is a fool with delusions of intelligence is old hat…

    I don’t thing Orly would recognize a fact if it walked up and introduced itself…

    Mr. Justice Moore might fit Orly’s description of an “honest judge”…but even he said that the judiciary does not have jurisdiction in determining electoral eligibility.

  4. avatar
    John Reilly March 27, 2014 at 11:11 pm #

    I’ve actually gone back and forth with Dr. Taitz in her misunderstanding of the British analysis of Inmarsat data. It does not help that (a) she has a preconceived notion of where the plane is, so any contrary data or theory must be ignored or disparaged, and (b) she has to start every response with “this is nonsense” rather than try to understand the math and concepts involved. So this new filing is much the same. If she succeeds, it means that in 2016 when someone asks Sen. Cruz for his birth certificate he’s going to have problems in Alabama and perhaps Mississippi. States he needs to carry.

  5. avatar
    John Reilly March 27, 2014 at 11:57 pm #

    W. Kevin Vicklund:
    Orly is such a tool:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/01/dots_in_gmail_addresses_what_happens_if_you_leave_out_the_period.html

    So, yeah, orly.taitz@gmail.com and orlytaitz@gmail.com are the same address.

    Once again, she is not interested in facts, logic or finding stuff out. She reaches a conclusion and works backwards.

  6. avatar
    The Magic M March 28, 2014 at 4:35 am #

    My question is: What does that have to do with the Mississippi case?

    I can’t help but feel a little schadenfreude. Judge Wingate invited this when he allowed delay based on what some anonymous dude allegedly wrote on Orly’s website (and she published). It was obvious to us this would encourage Orly to throw even more stuff at him than usual. I expect he’ll see the error of his ways and dismiss this crap quickly, as in “I gave you the benefit of the doubt but now I see you’re just a loon trying to game the system – DISMISSED”.

    it actually undermines her position because Judge Moore further states that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear eligibility cases

    And because he states the proper remedy would be impeachment, something birthers have always denied (and are ignoring now in their celebration of their non-hero Moore).

  7. avatar
    SueDB March 28, 2014 at 6:11 am #

    So… How’s that impeachy thing going for the Birfers???

  8. avatar
    Yoda March 28, 2014 at 7:59 am #

    Orly is the living manifestation of principle that one cannot be truly paranoid without have an incredibly inflated sense of self importance.

    There is nothing this woman has done that would or could get the attention of the administration.

  9. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 28, 2014 at 9:19 am #

    W. Kevin Vicklund:
    Orly is such a tool:

    That’s an insult to tools everywhere.

  10. avatar
    JPotter March 28, 2014 at 9:37 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: That’s an insult to tools everywhere.

    Especially good tools. Excellently made, well-crafted tools make the universe a better place, and empower those who wield them, multiplying time and effort, and enable the increase of knowledge.

    Birfers do the exact opposite.

  11. avatar
    bgansel9 March 28, 2014 at 10:16 am #

    A woman running for Attorney General of CA doesn’t understand that she’s not allowed to be involved with a Super PAC? LMAO! Why am I NOT surprised? She proves herself why she is not up to the job!

  12. avatar
    JPotter March 28, 2014 at 10:24 am #

    A bogus Super PAC? What with the tight regulations on those, how can that even be possible? ( :roll: )

  13. avatar
    Andrew Morris March 28, 2014 at 11:10 am #

    Wingate might also point out that a decision by another court is not “evidence”, or “new facts”. And while it might have some precedential value, it isn’t binding. However, a dissenting judgment isn’t worth the toilet paper it’s written on.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2014 at 11:23 am #

    i think Taitz just cited the oral argument in Lindsay, not the decision.

    Andrew Morris: And while it might have some precedential value, it isn’t binding.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2014 at 11:25 am #

    Well the Orly Taitz Super PAC isn’t a Super PAC in the first place, since those apply to federal elections, and Orly is running for state office. It’s just a name.

    JPotter:
    A bogus Super PAC? What with the tight regulations on those, how can that even be possible?( :roll:)

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2014 at 11:29 am #

    My opinion is that you’re not going to see impeachment attempted. Even though I wouldn’t put it beyond the political desires of the Republican obstructionists, it would be seen as racist and be highly destructive to the future of the Party.

    SueDB: So… How’s that impeachy thing going for the Birfers???

  17. avatar
    Jim March 28, 2014 at 11:29 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    i think Taitz just cited the oral argument in Lindsay, not the decision.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/215057533/S-D-MISS-ECF-106-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-New-Facts-and-Opinions

    Response from Miss…

  18. avatar
    realist March 28, 2014 at 11:33 am #

    Beat me to it, Jim. :)

    But yeah, nothing contained in her latest pile to Judge Wingate is relevant to the case in MS. Nothing.

    She is a total looney tune.

  19. avatar
    Rickey March 28, 2014 at 11:53 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Well the Orly Taitz Super PAC isn’t a Super PAC in the first place, since those apply to federal elections, and Orly is running for state office. It’s just a name.

    Having read the entire thing, I’m convinced that it’s a spoof.

    The domain is registered to a mail drop address in Brea, California.

  20. avatar
    The Magic M March 28, 2014 at 11:55 am #

    Jim: Response from Miss…

    Tepper as quick and concise as ever.

  21. avatar
    Rickey March 28, 2014 at 11:55 am #

    Jim: http://www.scribd.com/doc/215057533/S-D-MISS-ECF-106-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-New-Facts-and-Opinions

    Response from Miss…

    It took them only three pages to thoroughly eviscerate Orly’s motion.

  22. avatar
    realist March 28, 2014 at 12:29 pm #

    The Magic M: Tepper as quick and concise as ever.

    I have it on Very Good Authority that a certain Fogbow law student in HI had a very large hand in writing that Opposition. :)

  23. avatar
    sef March 28, 2014 at 12:56 pm #

    realist: I have it on Very Good Authority that a certain Fogbow law student in HI had a very large hand in writing that Opposition.

    His will be a career worth watching.

  24. avatar
    Jim March 28, 2014 at 1:00 pm #

    realist: I have it on Very Good Authority that a certain Fogbow law student in HI had a very large hand in writing that Opposition.

    Oh-oh…another to add to Orly’s REEEEEEEEKOOOOOOOOO!!!!

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2014 at 1:07 pm #

    Probably the only good thing to come out of the Orly Taitz saga.

    sef: His will be a career worth watching.

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2014 at 1:20 pm #

    Thanks, Jim. I have updated the article.

    Jim: Response from Miss…

  27. avatar
    Dave March 28, 2014 at 1:30 pm #

    I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that responding to Taitz calls for a set of skills somewhat different from regular lawyering. In order to refute an argument, you have to be able to say what that argument is — and it can be extremely difficult to decipher what points Taitz is trying to make.

  28. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 28, 2014 at 1:31 pm #

    Rickey: It took them only three pages to thoroughly eviscerate Orly’s motion.

    The Fed. R. of Civ. Procedure and Local Rules of Civ. Procedure are enacted by court order. The U.S. Supreme Court orders amendments to the Fed. R. of Civ. Procedure and in Mississippi, a majority vote of active judges amends the local rules.

    As of April, 2013, the Local Rules of Civ. Procedure cancelled all previous rules and enacted new rules previously voted on by a majority of active judges in the district court in the state of Mississippi. At least one of the voting judges in Mississippi was appointed by President Obama.

    ORLY LOOK HERE … IT’S IMPORTANT !!!

    The Honorable Carlton Wayne Reeves assumed active service in 2010 after appointment by President Obama. Judge Reeves was a voting member of the local rule changes in the state of Mississippi. Pursuant to the de facto officer doctrine, a judge appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

    You see it happening in Crimea. Putin is amending the laws and rules to make everything he has done legal. Obama has done the same thing.

  29. avatar
    realist March 28, 2014 at 1:53 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: As of April, 2013, the Local Rules of Civ. Procedure cancelled all previous rules and enacted new rules previously voted on by a majority of active judges in the district court in the state of Mississippi. At least one of the voting judges in Mississippi was appointed by President Obama.

    ORLY LOOK HERE … IT’S IMPORTANT !!!

    The Honorable Carlton Wayne Reeves assumed active service in 2010 after appointment by President Obama. Judge Reeves was a voting member of the local rule changes in the state of Mississippi. Pursuant to the de facto officer doctrine, a judge appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

    You see it happening in Crimea. Putin is amending the laws and rules to make everything he has done legal. Obama has done the same thing.

    Unless you are being sarcastic (and I don’t think you are) you are, as usual with birthers who use birtherlaw, 100% wrong. But that’s never stopped birthers from continuing down the stupid road.

  30. avatar
    Andrew Morris March 28, 2014 at 2:10 pm #

    You can almost hear them sniggering as they wrote the response to Orly’s latest rantings

  31. avatar
    Joey March 28, 2014 at 2:34 pm #

    I couldn’t help but notice that Sven Magnussen did not bother to state how and why he thinks that any Mississippi federal judge appointed by President Obama is in violation of the Appointments Clause since every sitting federal judge was confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
    The Honorable Debra M. Brown of the Northern District of Mississippi was also appointed by President Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. It is Senate confirmation that makes any federal judge constitutionally eligible.
    Judge Reeves was confirmed on a voice vote and Judge Brown was confirmed 90-0.

  32. avatar
    BillTheCat March 28, 2014 at 2:49 pm #

    Hah the return of Sven, because you just can’t have enough crazy!

  33. avatar
    Rickey March 28, 2014 at 3:00 pm #

    SvenMagnussen

    The Honorable Carlton Wayne Reeves assumed active service in 2010 after appointment by President Obama. Judge Reeves was a voting member of the local rule changes in the state of Mississippi. Pursuant to the de facto officer doctrine, a judge appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

    Presidents don’t “appoint” Federal judges. They nominate Federal judges, who are then either confirmed or rejected by the Senate. Federal judges actually are appointed jointly by the President and the Senate, as the appointment does not take place until the nomination has been confirmed by the Senate.

    I don’t believe that you know what the de facto office doctrine means.

    Even Orly is smart enough to pay no attention to you.

  34. avatar
    Rickey March 28, 2014 at 3:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    i think Taitz just cited the oral argument in Lindsay, not the decision.

    Interestingly, the attorney for Lindsay misstated the facts of the Eldridge Cleaver case. He said “Mr. Cleaver ended up still running but not being on the ballot. He was 34. He actually would have been 35 within the time of the Presidential election period.” Cleaver was born on August 31, 1935. He wouldn’t have been 35 until August 31, 1969.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/214933107/S-D-MISS-ECF-105-2-EXHIBIT-2-Transcription-of-Court-Recording

  35. avatar
    Jim March 28, 2014 at 3:30 pm #

    BillTheCat:
    Hah the return of Sven, because you just can’t have enough crazy!

    I’m getting a feeling that the birthers are feeling the heat of failure and being scammed by Zullo/Gallups. They’ve lost their Great White Hope (Alabama) and can see only failure after failure by their Great Blond Nitwit. All they have to look forward to is the next “We can’t tell you, but take our word for it…any-year-now” statements from the Bar Bouncer and his dimly lit sidekick. Their boards are filling up with calls for sedition and revolution, realizing they’d get wiped out before they got near the WH. They come here trying to pump themselves up and give themselves a false sense of doing something. It’s really moved from being a political movement to being more of a bowel movement…and they know it.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2014 at 3:35 pm #

    She won’t let you post on her site?

    SvenMagnussen: ORLY LOOK HERE … IT’S IMPORTANT !!!

  37. avatar
    Bonsall Obot March 28, 2014 at 3:36 pm #

    ORLY, LOOK HERE! WHY DON’T YOU LOVE ME BACK, ORLY?

  38. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 28, 2014 at 4:02 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    She won’t let you post on her site?

    I like Obama Conspiracy Theories.

  39. avatar
    SvenMagnussen March 28, 2014 at 4:18 pm #

    Rickey: Interestingly, the attorney for Lindsay misstated the facts of the Eldridge Cleaver case. He said “Mr. Cleaver ended up still running but not being on the ballot. He was 34. He actually would have been 35 within the time of the Presidential election period.” Cleaver was born on August 31, 1935. He wouldn’t have been 35 until August 31, 1969.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/214933107/S-D-MISS-ECF-105-2-EXHIBIT-2-Transcription-of-Court-Recording

    Let me explain with an example. 9 judges vote on a proposed order to amend the Fed. R. Civ. Proc. One of judges was “nominated” for an appointment to fill a vacancy by a usurper. A majority of the Senate votes to consent to the nomination. The nominee is appointed and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after stating an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.

    The participation by the usurper creates suspect policy and administration of the court. It does not matter if the appointee abstained from voting, voted with the majority, or did not participate in a discussion to amend the rules, their participation makes the amendment objectionable.

    An objection is not required, but is available. The pleadings of a Pro se litigant are to be liberally construed. Orly has effectively objected in her case. She should demand an order for exemption from the rules promulgated by the appointees of a usurper or a hearing to determine Obama’s eligibility.

  40. avatar
    Daniel March 28, 2014 at 4:18 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I like Obama Conspiracy Theories.

    Almost as much as you love being wrong?

  41. avatar
    Bonsall Obot March 28, 2014 at 4:47 pm #

    Shorter Version of SvenMagnussen:

    An unsupported and unsupportable claim has been made against the duly-elected President; therefore, nothing the duly-elected President does counts until we withdraw the unsupported and unsupportable claim.

    This is the very definition of “begging the question.”

    Prove your allegations, THEN you can start trying to dismantle the government.
    (Hint: you’d fail at that, as well, because of the actual (not your imagined) definition of the de facto officer doctrine.)

  42. avatar
    realist March 28, 2014 at 4:51 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The participation by the usurper creates suspect policy and administration of the court. It does not matter if the appointee abstained from voting, voted with the majority, or did not participate in a discussion to amend the rules, their participation makes the amendment objectionable.

    An objection is not required, but is available. The pleadings of a Pro se litigant are to be liberally construed. Orly has effectively objected in her case. She should demand an order for exemption from the rules promulgated by the appointees of a usurper or a hearing to determine Obama’s eligibility.

    Sven… There is no usurper. Even if there were, that little doctrine you keep throwing around (which you apparently have no idea as to its meaning) means he’s still the president, his orders, etc., are lawful. Do some real research.
    The judge was confirmed by the Senate. There is no problem here even if he were a usurper (which of course, he’s not).

    And if Orly moved for that of which you speak, she not only would be laughed out of court but would lose in very short order. As would any other attorney stupid enough to do so.

  43. avatar
    The European March 28, 2014 at 5:09 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I like Obama Conspiracy Theories.

    I hope that this is the only thing we have in common …

  44. avatar
    Joey March 28, 2014 at 5:27 pm #

    No court or action by Congress has ever ruled that Barack Obama is a “usurper. ” In fact, 19 courts have explicitly ruled that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and completely eligible to be president of the United States.
    Here’s an excerpt from one of those 19 court rulings after a “trial on the merits” on natural born citizen status for the president:
    Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

  45. avatar
    Keith March 28, 2014 at 11:14 pm #

    Rickey: It took them only three pages to thoroughly eviscerate Orly’s motion.

    And one page was the title page and one page was the signature page.

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2014 at 2:18 pm #

    The Mississippi Secretary of State has joined in the motion opposing Taitz’ new filing.