Main Menu

Archive | Lawsuits

The judge was not impressed

Plaintiff [Orly Taitz] can rest assured that if any reasonable grounds existed for me to recuse myself from this case, I would have done so, if for no other reason than to avoid spending precious time on such frivolous filings. But, my responsibilities require me to handle dutifully the cases assigned to me.

– Federal Judge Ellen L. Hollander
Taitz v. Colvin

And so Orly Taitz’s motion for reconsideration and recusal of the judge was summarily rejected in a 7-page memorandum. Judge Hollander makes it clear that she is quite familiar with who Orly Taitz is, and her litigation history on behalf of the “’birther’ movement.” Judge Hollander points out that the time limit provided by statute had already passed, when Taitz filed her motion.

Judge Hollander notes:

Ms. Taitz has not provided any legal authority for the proposition that, if the President were removed from office, this judge or the hundreds of other executive and judicial branch appointees selected by him and then confirmed by the Senate would also become disqualified from their offices.

Nor has any other birther cited any legal authority for this widely-birther-held theory.

32

Klayman files appeal of obscure ruling on Alabama law to the US Supreme Court

Late as usual

In a move that left Obots open-mouthed with incomprehension, birther attorney Larry Klayman (who has never been convicted of criminal failure to pay child support), started the process of appealing his loss in McInnish v. Chapman to the US Supreme Court on June 19, reports the Supreme Court docket. Klayman moved for more time to submit his appeal. Perhaps he is hoping to get some momentum by a favorable ruling.

The McInnish case dealt with an obscure provision of Alabama law, called the “jurisdiction stripping statute,” that prevents Alabama courts from getting involved in the conduct of elections. McInnish wanted to force the Alabama Secretary of State to investigate the eligibility of presidential candidates as a duty of office. Klayman lost the case before the Alabama Supreme Court last March on a 7-2 vote, Chief Justice Roy Moore and Tom Parker dissenting.

Klayman’s timing of this request for an extension is odd. An appeal must be filed within 60 days of the judgment (28 U.S. Code § 2101) and Klayman’s motion for more time (which the statute permits) was filed precisely on the 60th day; however, the rules of the Supreme Court require that the request for an extension be filed 10 days before the deadline. Supreme Court Rule 13 (5) states:

For good cause, a Justice may extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari for a period not exceeding 60 days. An application to extend the time to file shall set out the basis for jurisdiction in this Court, identify the judgment sought to be reviewed, include a copy of the opinion and any order respecting rehearing, and set out specific reasons why an extension of time is justified. The application must be filed with the Clerk at least 10 days before the date the petition is due, except in extraordinary circumstances. The application must clearly identify each party for whom an extension is being sought, as any extension that might be granted would apply solely to the party or parties named in the application. For the time and manner of presenting the application, see Rules 21, 22, 30, and 33.2. An application to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is not favored.

The request for an extension was not even docketed until June 25, long after the deadline. I don’t even know if it is possible for a Justice to grant an extension after the deadline has expired, and if that’s true then the extension must have been granted on the 19th, or not at all; the Supreme Court docket indicates no extension granted. It is hard to fathom a reason for this case to be considered  having "extraordinary circumstances." Klayman could have filed the request for an extension any time he wanted to. There’s certainly no new evidence in the interpretation of the Alabama jurisdiction stripping statute. The election, which is the subject of the case, is long over, making anything to do with that particular election moot.

Read more:

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses, except Michael Shrimpton

Christopher Earl Strunk has a lawsuit in progress, at which he would like Michael Shrimpton to testify. The whole convoluted business can be found in a new lawsuit against the Department of State mostly (plus some others).

According to the complaint in an “Intent to file” motion in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (1:2014cv00995), Strunk sent Michael Shrimpton a round-trip plane ticket for the US so that he might testify for Strunk, but when Shrimpton applied for a visa to visit the US, it was denied. This suit wants that denial reversed. Of course, every visa denial comes with a reason, and in this case it was because Shrimpton was not able to convince the US Consul in London that if the US let Shrimpton in, that he would return home when the visa period ended. Someone seeking a non-immigrant visa to the US has to show significant ties to their home community.

imageThe short paragraph preceding probably does not convey every nuance of the 132-page filing, and the interested reader can supplement my summary with the original complaint linked above; however, readers may want to consider first donning a pair of Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive sunglasses. Also one may reference the Department of State discussion of Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, under which Shrimpton’s visa was denied. It is possible that the US Consul was concerned that Shrimpton had been convicted of sex-related criminal misdemeanor charges which Shrimpton is currently appealing, as well as pending criminal charges that he falsely notified the British government of an impending nuclear terrorist attack in 2012.

The Shrimpton testimony seems dubious at best. Continue Reading →

Federal lawsuit names George W. Bush as accomplice in Obama ineligibility

The title of this article, while true, isn’t the best summary of this baffling lawsuit out of Arizona. Indeed inmate Arnold James Begay blames quite a few people, including:

… all Government, The House of Rep. and Congress, United States Supreme Court Judges, Form President George W. Bush and Billy Clinton and also United States Secretary of States, and “CNN” personal (all)…

Begay want’s DNA from Obama, his mother and Osama bin Laden, for some purpose. I don’t want to make fun of the guy unnecessarily, so I won’t highlight his spelling and logic errors. He probably did the best he could. Read more at the Liberals Unite web site.

What I found curious is that his handwritten complaint lists the defendant as Barack Hussein Obama, II (correct) but the Court Docket has it as Barack Hussein Obama, Jr (incorrect).

Paige and Vogt fail at the Supreme Court

Folks reading comments here already know that the Supreme Court published decisions today: H. Brooke Paige and Douglas Vogt came up losers. The Supreme Court will not take up their cases.

If you want to read more, check out RC’s article, “It’s a twofer at the Supreme Court.”

Double standard

[This article originally appeared as a comment at Birther Report.]

On the way back from Philadelphia, I read the exchanges between Foggy and the resident birthers and I wanted to make a few general observations on them.

If you don’t already know, Foggy likes to poke a stick in the birther ant hill. Of course the FBI isn’t tapping Zullo’s phone. What in earth’s name for? A really savvy birther wouldn’t take such things seriously, even for a joke.

What was interesting was that birthers immediately brought forward the contradictory claims that Foggy was disbarred AND that he resigned from the California Bar. It doesn’t seem to bother folks that these are contradictory, not even when they come from the same person!

A reference to my article, "To sue or not to sue: Chapter 2" was made, accompanying the question of what happened to a suggested lawsuit by Foggy against Jerome Corsi for libel. Foggy did consult a defamation lawyer about that case, but the upshot of it was that while Foggy could trivially prove that he was libeled, he could not show that it damaged him.

The most entertaining part of the discussion was the irony found in comments. Foggy made a claim about this FBI intelligence and everybody jumped on him saying that if he had any such transcript or evidence, that he should make it public immediately–and at the same time commenters like Joe Mannix were defending the Cold Case Posse, making equally outrageous claims of universe shattering secret evidence, from having to back up their claims and publish their evidence.

If I were to write all this up as an article on my site, I would title it, "Double Standard."