Archive | Ballot Challenges

Paige tries to lay down the Law to the Vermont Supreme Court

By Dr. Conspiracy on April 24, 2013 in Ballot Challenges, Lawsuits

It was a good day for Justice in Vermont!
– H. Brooke Paige

H. Brooke Paige tried to impress the Vermont Supreme Court yesterday with a thick pile of books¹ that he at one point attempted to approach and hand to them, violating their personal judicial space, and according to the Burlington Free Press, raising some alarm.

Paige wanted to make it clear to the justices that he was not one of those crazy birthers, saying:

Don’t pay any attention to them. The birther argument is just a sheer flight of fancy.²

Paige is one of those crazy Vattelians. Like other cranks, Paige focuses just on what supports his theories, interpreting the evidence as if the theory were fact, and excluding everything against it, and so cannot objectively evaluate evidence. The judges were more interested in the law. Reportedly birther attorney Mario Apuzzo, who has argued classic birther conspiracy theories on behalf of Charles Kerchner, helped Paige with his arguments.

The Vermont Superior Court previously rejected Paige’s definition of “natural born citizen,” repeating the conclusions of many other courts on this question.

¹Vattel’s The Law of Nations

²Quote of the Day for sure

Vermont judge tosses crank “natural born citizen” suit

By Dr. Conspiracy on November 16, 2012 in Ballot Challenges, Citizenship, Lawsuits

Superior Court judge Robert Bent found the suit Paige v. State of Vermont “interesting” but fatally flawed for lack of standing and jurisdiction. In addition, the central thesis of the complaint was that US Presidents must have US citizen parents is just wrong, the judge writing:

The expression “natural born citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed.

Read the article at the Burlington Free Press.

Read the decision here:

Continue Reading →

Moot court

By Dr. Conspiracy on November 12, 2012 in Ballot Challenges

“Moot court” is an extracurricular activity law students hold to practice their skills at writing briefs and making oral arguments. In this instance, the phrase “moot” derives from the Anglo-Saxon term gmot, a meeting of prominent persons (the same root as the Harry Potter wizarding world word “Wizengamot”). Here I use “moot” in its other sense, “of little of no practical value, merely theoretical.”

Alabama Circuit Court Judge Eugene W. Reese has granted a 15-minute hearing on December 6 to hear motions in the case of McInnish v. Chapman (the latter Alabama’s Secretary of State). Attempts to keep Barack Obama off the Alabama ballot would seem doubly moot now that the election is over and Obama didn’t get any electoral votes from Alabama anyway. There is no actual controversy, nor can an Alabama Circuit Court provide any relief requested by the Plaintiffs and their attorney Larry Klayman. It’s moot.

Winding down

By Dr. Conspiracy on November 8, 2012 in Ballot Challenges, Orly Taitz

I don’t know whether the birther movement is folding up its tents and going home, or just pausing to catch second wind. In any case, I needed some sort of introductory theme to justify mentioning that Orly Taitz’s lawsuit in Kansas to block Obama from the Ballot there was rejected by Shawnee County Kansas District Court judge Larry Hendricks last Friday, reports the Topeka Capital-Journal. Taitz was also rebuffed by a state court judge in Indiana.

NBC also reports that Defendants Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein and Elizabeth Emken have been dismissed from her California suit for several reasons that cannot be remedied. So that’s the end of that.

Taitz has active federal lawsuits in California, Mississippi and Texas. Her RICO claims, of course, are not made moot by the election; they are made moot because the lack any basis in fact.

Latest legal

By Dr. Conspiracy on November 3, 2012 in Ballot Challenges, Lawsuits

This is a summary of some of the latest legal filings in birther cases from the Jack Ryan collection at Scribd. If you can’t remember the URL, it’s linked under the Docket menu on this site.

Taitz v Elections Commission (Indiana Superior Court)

Order Denying Motion to Intervene (October 30). Keith Judd and Leah Lax petitioned the court to intervene in the case. Judge S. K. Reid denied the motion. No specifics given.
Post-Trial Order Granting Judgment in Favor of the Indiana Election Commission and the Indiana Secretary of State on Plaintiffs’ Claim of Declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief (October 30). It appear that the Indiana Attorney General’s proposed order was signed as-is and without alteration. The money quote from this order is: “In the end, this Court is not ‘Wonderland’ and and ‘simply saying something is so does not make it so.’ Rhodes v. MacDonald, 2009 WL 299705, at *4,”
Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against the Indiana Election Commission and the Indiana Secretary of State (October 30). Taitz had moved for summary judgment in her favor because the Defendants filed a response late. They didn’t. Motion denied.

Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi (Mississippi Federal Court)

Defendants Barack H. Obama, II, Nancy Pelosi, Obama for America and the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee’s Notice of Action by Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Striking Motion of Orly Taitz to Coordinate and Consolidate Cases Under 28 USC § 1707(C)(II). Orly Taitz had attempted to consolidate three of her cases, Judd v. Obama in California (later dismissed), Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi and Taitz v. Sebelius in Texas. The Judicial Panel ordered Taitz’ petition stricken and the defendants listed here are providing a copy of that order to the Court in Mississippi. Orly’s motion to the JPML was stricken because she didn’t follow the rules.

Taitz v. Obama (Superior Court, Orange County, California)

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Ex Parte Application of Plaintiff Orly Taitz for Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Third Party Respondent Occidental College; in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena; and in Support of Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $4,000 (November 1, 2012). Attorneys explain why Orly Taitz’ motion to compel them to produce Obama’s college records is frivolous and that they should be reimbursed for $4,000 in expenses responding to it. Occidental attorneys characterize Taitz’ action as “blatantly vexatious” and “an abuse of process” because the motion to compel came before the subpoena and because it gave one days’ notice when 20 was required. Occidental described Taitz as a “well-known and vexatious litigant.” A litany of defects in Taitz’ case are recounted in the 9-page brief. Also included were the Declarations of D. Jay Ritt and Carl Botterud that have some entertainment value of their own.

Indiana attorney Greg Black “gobsmacked”

By Dr. Conspiracy on November 2, 2012 in Ballot Challenges

In a letter to the editor of the Hendricks County Flyer, Orly Taitz’ sponsoring Attorney in Indiana has written that the decision in Taitz v. Elections Commission was a “nightmare” and that he was “gobsmacked”:

To the Editor:

Karl Swihart of Avon persuaded Dr. Orly Taitz, a California lawyer who attacks President Obama’s birth records etc., to make me her sponsoring lawyer for suit in Indianapolis to remove Mr. Obama from the ballot as not being a natural born citizen[.]

I did, to the chagrin of many who regard me as strange. Maybe I am, but I am also curious.

Not even sure why I write.

The trial was Oct. 22 in Judge S. K. Reid’s court, she a former adversary in a case I had. Judge Reid is honest, brave. We disagree, but respect each other.

We have been "gobsmacked," word Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal uses to mean shocked, ambushed.

The birth certificate the White House published 18 months ago online to prove Mr. Obama’s birth 4 August 1971 in Honolulu is a forgery, so says expert Paul Irey, formerly of Air Force intelligence.

No contrary evidence was offered, though opponents were informed of the evidence in March or so.

The evidence is in.

This is not a political case, it is a Constitutional Law case.

This is a nightmare. May God protect this nation.

Sincerely,

Greg Black
Danville

I must say that this struck me as disingenuous. Mr. Black certainly knows that there were a host of standing objections to Irey’s qualifications as an expert that the Judge didn’t rule on. Surely he knows that Paul Irey’s stint at Air Force Intelligence was as a typist. He certainly knows that Judge Reid ended the trial before the Defense completed its cross examination of Paul Irey. The evidence was not “in” in any legal sense of the word. The trial may well have been a nightmare, but it was a nightmare for the Defense, with the birthers being allowed all sorts of leave to call unqualified witnesses. Plaintiffs got much better than they deserved to have had the trial at all.

Black may have been “gobsmacked” but normal folks saw this coming for months.

Proposed orders in Taitz v. Indiana Elections Commission

By Dr. Conspiracy on November 2, 2012 in Ballot Challenges, Orly Taitz

A series of proposed orders in Taitz v. Elections Commission from the Indiana Attorney General’s office have been obtained. After the October 22 “trial” in which Taitz called three witnesses, the judge directed Orly Taitz, and the State defendants to provide her with proposed orders. I haven’t seen the ones from Taitz, but the AG proposed orders are linked below. One proposed order “vacates” the trial (meaning that the whole October 22 affair will be stricken from the record).

Update:

Orly Taitz reports [link to Taitz web site] that her Indiana attorney pro hac vice sponsor Greg Black sent the following email:

Mr. Kesler¹ all orders of Atty Gen adopted, trial vacated, all evidence stricken, complaint dismissed…

Basic ruling of Judge: no proper appeal of Elections Commission decision in February. Elections Commission decision in February is final, unappealed.

But the truth: birth certificate White House sent out April ’11 is admitted, Paul Irey allowed to testify the birth certificate is forged. That was the state of the evidence at close of trial, no contrary evidence.

Greg

Judge Reid in Indiana is noted for her rubber stamp collection.

¹Edward Kesler was one of the plaintiffs in the case.

Older posts

Navigation