Archive | Ballot Challenges RSS feed for this section

Judd case returned to Judge Carter

By on November 2, 2012 in Ballot Challenges, Lawsuits, Orly Taitz

The re-filed Judd v. Obama lawsuit in California is largely an attempt by obsessive birther attorney Orly Taitz to raise the same issues in the case of Barnett v. Obama from 2009, where Taitz was also the attorney before the same California court. Because of the related nature of the cases, the new suit has been transferred to federal judge David O. Carter, under General Order 08-05 (Related Cases), who heard the original case (and who also recently dismissed without prejudice  an attempt by Taitz to litigate Judd without actually filing it by removing it from state court to federal).

In the Barnett case Judge Carter was very tolerant of Taitz’ lack of legal skills, assisting her, for example, in getting President Obama served with the summons in the case. Ex-Marine Carter, however, ultimately ruled against Taitz and one might predict that he will be less patient with nonsense this time around. The case number will now read: SACV12-01888 DOC (ANx).

The Judd case itself is a huge business with many defendants1 and causes of action, including a federal racketeering claim against folks who haven’t bought into the idea that Obama is not eligible to be President. She’s even suing a federal judge.

1Defendants are: Barack Obama, Debra Bowen, William M Gardner, Brian P Kemp, Larry Rappaport, Natalie E Tennant, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Astrue, William A Chatfield, Alvin Onaka, Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, Brian Schatz, Lynn Matusow, Alice Travis Germond, Obama For America, Ballot Law Commission of State of New Hampshire, Board of Directors of California Republican Party, Dean C Logan, Elizabeth Emken, Dianne Feinstein, Clay D Land, John Avlon, Chris Matthews, MSNBC, Kevin Underhill, Clearchannel Communications, KFI AM 640, John and Ken Show, John Kobelt, Patrick R Donahoe, CNN, John Does and Jane Does.

I asked Orly Taitz about the presence of Larry Rappaport (plaintiff in the previous Judd case) as a defendant on the District Court docket. She said this was a clerical error and would be corrected.

Layered defense

By on October 31, 2012 in Ballot Challenges, Orly Taitz

Artists rendering of Federal Courthouse in Jackson MSPresident Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Obama for America are now engaged in the Taitz v Democrat Party of Mississippi lawsuit, answering the “First amended complaint” in a brief this past Monday (October 29) in Jackson, MS. I was just a little surprised to see, although it makes perfect sense, that attorneys Scott Tepper and Sam Begley are representing these new defendants as well as the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee. In addition to denying the allegations in Taitz’ complaint, the President and the other Defendants offered affirmative defenses, layers and layers of them, specifically:

  1. The complaint consists of immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous matter, has been filed for an improper purpose, and should be stricken pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
  2. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction
  3. Failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
  4. Lack of standing, lack of ripeness, mootness and no assertion of justiciable right to relief.
  5. Failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 9(a) and 9(b)
  6. Failure to comply with jurisdictional and procedural requirements of Miss. Code Ann. §§ 23-15-961, 23-15-963 and 23-15-1089.
  7. Some or all claims barred by estoppel, ratification, collateral estoppel, waiver and/or laches.
  8. Plaintiffs have unclean hands 1
  9. Plaintiffs have not been injured within the meaning of the applicable law
  10. Defenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1961
  11. Immunity
  12. Defenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) and 12(b).
  13. Other affirmative defenses

In addition to asking the court to dismiss the case, the Defense is asking for costs, writing:

Defendants further respectfully request that this court assess attorney[‘]s fees against Plaintiffs pursuant to the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act of 1988, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1927, for a wholly frivolous, unreasonable, vexations and malicious complaint.

Read the Answer:

Continue Reading →

Internet forecast: cloudy and cold. Orly’s back.

By on October 31, 2012 in Ballot Challenges, Lawsuits, Orly Taitz

Yes, the Orly Taitz web site, that blogging blight, is back online. Here’s a sample.

Obama Made in USA mugSomebody made Orly Taitz a nice gift of a Barack Obama birth certificate  Made in USA mug, so she held a contest on her blog as to what to do with it. I’ll do the same: what do you think she should do with it? My suggestion was that she autograph it and sell it on eBay to pay for the sanctions when her next frivolous lawsuit is dismissed. Orly, gross, uncouth, and uncultured, said she would use it as a “chamber pot (night potty) :) ”.

In further news, Orly readers are getting repetitive motion injury with all the clicking they had to do to read Orly’s latest document (she hasn’t figured out how WordPress links to documents), nor has she bothered to take multiple scanned pages and make them one document. Here’s the new document for her Mississippi case in a single PDF with OCR. This is a curious new pustule on the image analysis of President Obama’s long-form birth certificate PDF. As you may recall, attorneys for the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee (MDEC) in one brief included a legible copy of the President’s birth certificate to supplement an illegible copy Taitz had submitted. Mr. Henry Blake of Tennessee has noted that the layering in the PDF MDEC submission is different than the layering in the White House PDF. Of course, since the MDEC submission is a multi-page document of which the White House PDF is only an insertion means that it has been reprocessed by the software used by MDEC. Any comparison of layers is mindless stupidity (i.e. birther image analysis). One commenter on Orly’s site concluded “it’s a trap.”

Orly makes one observation that’s probably correct. federal Judge Wingate in Mississippi probably isn’t going to do remove his stay on discovery and allow depositions before the election [link to Taitz web site]. The case will be dismissed sooner or later. Wingate doesn’t seem to be in any hurry.

Orly re-filed her recently dismissed federal lawsuit, Judd v. Obama, in California yesterday and she’s all excited about having a new judge, James Selna. Unfortunately, you didn’t get a new law to go with the new judge.

Taitz needs help in this incomprehensible task:

I got quotes from Obot sites, where obots were making admissions that there were changes to Obama’s BCs. Please, send me the quotes and IP addresses if you can

I guess she means URLs. I can’t imagine what “admissions” she thinks exist.

To bifurcate, or not to bifurcate, that is the question

By on October 25, 2012 in Ballot Challenges, Lawsuits, Orly Taitz, Sanctions

Sorry, it’s Taitz again

If you’ve been following the history of the lawsuit of Taitz v. Mississippi Democrat Party, you know that it’s been a complicated process. Originally filed in Mississippi State Court on Valentine’s day this year, the case has had many twists and turns. After filing the case, Taitz demanded a new judge and then filed an amended complaint, adding defendants, and a Civil RICO (racketeering) action. Defendant Mississippi Secretary of State removed the case to federal court and Taitz has been fighting to return it to state court (judge shopping, I guess). Attorney Scott Tepper, who exhibits an almost encyclopedic knowledge of birther arcana, is co-counsel in Mississippi for the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee (MDEC). Taitz filed Bar complaints against Tepper in both California and Mississippi, both tossed out. Taitz demanded that every member of the MDEC be warned that they were liable for criminal prosecution if they continued to help Obama stay on the ballot.

Taitz’ attempt to return the case to state court failed, but now she’s attempting to divide the case (which she previously glued together) into two parts, one that could be heard in state court, with the RICO complaint left in federal court. This bifurcation multiplies the complexity of the thing and the MDEC has opposed this latest whoop-de-do by Taitz. The MDEC motion filed today, and joined by the Secretary of State,  appears at the end of the article.

Rather than simply trying to get the case out of court as fast as possible, the MDEC is also using language that builds on an already-existing foundation for a motion for sanctions against Taitz under 28 U.S.C. §19271. Unlike sanctions under federal Rule 11, §1927 specifically targets attorneys and because misconduct under §1927 requires bad faith on the part of the attorney, it is appropriate for warnings to be made now in order to ward off, or provide grounds for sanctions later, should Taitz continue to multiply the proceedings.

If Taitz had stuck with her original complaint, the case would have remained in state court, and almost certainly she would have had a judgment by now. As it is, this case will certainly drag on past the Election if it is not simply dismissed before then.

One interesting footnote in the MDEC filing is a reference to a Mississippi Medicaid regulation that says:

Most United States citizens are natural-born citizens, meaning they were born in the United States or were born to United States citizens overseas.

If you enjoy hearing Taitz chewed up and spit out, this filing is for you:

Continue Reading →

The return of the McInnish

By on October 24, 2012 in Ballot Challenges, Jerome Corsi, Joe Arpaio

Hugh McInnish of Alabama is joined by Keith Goode in a lawsuit against Secretary of State Beth Chapman filed October 11. The suit in the form of a petition for writ of mandamus seeks to compel Chapman to verify the eligibility of all the candidates running for President in Alabama. What makes this case notable is that plaintiffs are represented by attorney Larry Klayman along with local counsel L. Dean Johnson. Klayman comes off a string of defeats in birther cases.

McInnish had sued Chapman previously in the Alabama Supreme Court. This is the case with the infamous birther-friendly concurring opinion by Alabama Supreme Court Justice Parker. Parker wrote:

McInnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the “short form” and the “long form” birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.

The previous case was dismissed because the Court said that there is no original jurisdiction to hear a Writ of Mandamus petition at the Alabama Supreme Court. That mistake is avoided this time by filing the petition in the Montgomery Circuit Court. McInnish claims:

  • Obama’s long form birth certificate is a forgery
  • Obama is ineligible because his father was not a US Citizen

and attaches exhibits (fewer than the previous case):

  • Affidavit of Sheriff Joe Arpaio
  • Affidavit of Jerome Corsi
  • Article on George Washington’s overdue library book (Vattel’s Law of Nations)
  • Article: Book Selections of the Founding Fathers

Klayman moved for summary judgment (apparently too soon).  The Alabama Democratic Party petitioned for leave to intervene, including in their filing the order from Florida dismissing the similar Voeltz case (also prosecuted by Klayman). The motion for summary judgment was opposed by the Alabama Secretary of State through her counsel James W. Davis of the Attorney General’s office, assisted by Margaret L. Fleming. Defendants objections may be briefly stated:

  • The motion for summary judgment was filed too soon
  • There is no statutory requirement for the Alabama Secretary of State to verify eligibility of candidates
  • Only Congress may determine a President’s qualifications (citing Robinson v. Bowen)
  • Plaintiffs failed to join necessary parties (i.e. Barack Obama)
  • The claim was filed too late (voting has already begun).

Given the late date, I would assume that this case was filed solely for publicity value right before the election. However, birther cases are no longer news.

This lawsuit is:

Doomed

Orly @ Indy

By on October 22, 2012 in Ballot Challenges, Lawsuits, Orly Taitz

Taitz v. Elections Commission was scheduled to start at 10 AM this morning in Indianapolis, Judge S. K. Reid presiding, and to run for two hours. If you want the latest news, check The Fogbow “Boots on Ground” report (this starts with September stuff, so skip to the end; I’ll change this link if it’s not correct). These should start appearing after the trial is over.

I’ll update this article when I have some news.

Updates:

  • Trial still in progress at 12:42 pm.
  • Orly Taitz case against Mike Zullo and Joe Arpaio to attend trial in Indiana was docketed today.
  • From Orly blog: “This is Huge! Over objections by the defense we were able to admit into evidence all of the exhibits and testimony showing forgery in Obama’s birth certificate. Proposed order will be submitted by TH, decision by Judge Reid will be coming in the near future!”
  • Boots on the Ground report from A Legal Lohengrin at the Fogbow: “I arrived about 10 minutes late and missed the preliminaries of the dumbest legal proceeding I have ever attended.” Link to Part 1.

There is a little information filtering out. Irey, Strunk, and Papa testified (probably more). Hearing ended at 1:10 pm. The State’s Motion to Dismiss could not be ruled upon because Orly has not had time to respond to it. Both sides are to have proposed orders to the Judge by Thursday.

Reality Check will have eyewitness report on his radio show tonight at 7:30 Eastern Time.

My take on what I’ve seen so far is that this is a replay of Farrar v. Obama in Georgia before Judge Malihi, only with the defense objecting to everything (e.g. Felicito Papa not qualified as expert).

Read more:

Default default (updated)

By on October 19, 2012 in Ballot Challenges, Lawsuits, Orly Taitz

Orly Taitz once had a chance to obtain a default judgment against Barack Obama in Georgia, but she threw it away by demanding to put on her case and obtain a judgment on the merits (she lost due to lack of merit). Since then, she has filed notices of default from time to time, recently in the case of Judd v. Obama. The whole case was dismissed sua sponte shortly thereafter.

The word is that Taitz has filed another notice of default, this time against the Indiana Secretary of State and Elections Commission for failing to respond to her “Second Amended Complaint.” I’ve been trying to sort out this Indiana stuff without a great deal of success. One cannot just click a couple of links to get court documents from Marion County, Indiana, Superior Court, so I have to rely largely on what Orly Taitz chooses to disclose.

A hearing was held in Indiana on September 26 to consider a preliminary injunction to keep Obama off the ballot. That motion was denied in an order published October 16.

I bought a copy of the Marion County docket for the case this morning. It shows that Taitz filed her “First Amended Complaint” on May 7, 2012, and as best I can tell, a response was filed May 21. If I understand the rules, once a response has been filed, plaintiffs cannot file another amended complaint without leave of the court, and I have not seen any information as to this leave being granted which the Court has granted. The language in the court’s order for the trial this coming Monday references the causes and defendants in the “First Amended Complaint” only. The notice of default doesn’t appear, but there is a motion to dismiss the “Second Amended Complaint” filed yesterday (October 18).

On Monday, the trial will involve only two of the causes, declaratory relief and permanent injunction. I presume that these two were selected because they involve the conduct of the election, and this is an expedited hearing. What continues to baffle me is how this can be litigated without Barack Obama as a party.

Older posts Newer posts