Main Menu

Archive | Lawsuits

This is the way Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi ends: with a whimper

Orders were issued by Judge Henry T. Wingate of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi yesterday (March 31) that dealt with the remaining issues in Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi. The 2012 case has been mired in the proverbial Mississippi mud for some time, but has finally reached resolution.

In his 64-page waste of judicial resources order Dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Judge Wingate provided a history of the proceeding.

Wingate ruled:

  • The additional evidence Taitz submitted January 21, 2014, is disregarded because it is immaterial to her ballot challenge, and does not remedy her lack of standing.
  • The court dismissed the Onaka/Fuddy motion as moot.
  • The motion to bifurcate, the motion for an evidentiary hearing, and Mr. Grinol’s motion to intervene are all dismissed as moot.
  • No individual injury alleged in the case due to Obama being on the ballot.
  • Taitz did not file a timely primary election challenge under Mississippi law or of she did, her petition to the court for review was not timely. That challenge, as well as her email challenge to the General Election ballot is dismissed for failing to comply with the state statutory prerequisites (not timely, and no bond posted).
  • The Mississippi Secretary of State has no duty to vet candidates for office.
  • Citing several Obama eligibility cases under the topic of “political question,” the court said “…this court can find no authority in the Constitution which would permit it to determine that a sitting president is unqualified for office or a president-elect is unqualified to take office.”
  • Taitz did not allege any facts that would support her RICO claim against the Mississippi Secretary of State.
  • The Secretary of State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.
  • Many Obama eligibility cases are cited on the question of standing. The “candidate” plaintiffs, Lax, Roth and MacLeran did not seek to be on the Mississippi ballot or to receive their party’s nomination, and so lack “competitive standing.” The court can provide no remedy for alleged threats from anonymous third parties.
  • Taitz had no authority to issue the subpoena she sent to Hawaii because she’s not admitted to the bar in Mississippi, nor Hawaii.
  • “…the plaintiffs’ complaint and RICO statement are far from a model of clarity.” “Further, plaintiffs have deluged the court with documents brimming with accusations, conclusory statements, and general attacks.” “…plaintiffs have thrown a haystack at the court, expecting the court to find a needle therein.”
  • The RICO complaint failed to allege any harm to Taitz’ business as a result of specific illegal acts by the defendants (the Mississippi Secretary of State RICO claim already dismissed at this point).
  • No standing for the RICO suit. Dismissed.

In summary:

The court has reviewed the extensive and jumbled pleadings by the plaintiffs. … The court is not persuaded that the plaintiffs have asserted any viable causes of action. This court, thus, dismisses the plaintiffs’ claims.


Taitz: New lawsuit–new judge–old claims

California dentist and attorney Orly Taitz has filed a third lawsuit in federal court in Brownsville to stop what she says is the granting of bogus asylum and refugee status to undocumented immigrants and to stop the government from, as she alleges, helping people engaged in identify theft.

— More at the Valley Morning Star

Classic Taitz stolen social-security number claims make an appearance in Taitz v. Koskinen et al., as Taitz not only sues the Department of Homeland Security, but returns to the Social Security Administration and throws in the IRS. Judge Hilda G. Tagle ordered a joint Discovery/Case Management Plan due by 7/31/2015.

Taitz, not satisfied at the assignment of judge, moved today to have the case transferred to Judge Andrew S. Hanen. She argues that this case is related to the previous two she has filed. Well, duh.

Read the complaint. The court called it a complaint, although it is titled a petition for stay/emergency injunction. It provides good coverage for the conspiracy theories Taitz believes. Some of her facts are wrong. Her document “experts” are not qualified. Much is complete speculation. The response will likely be a motion to dismiss because Taitz lacks standing (and lacks an emergency).

So I am not a lawyer, but I had this notion that “stay” meant the court would stop something from happening, and that emergency injunctions were actions to prevent some irreparable harm. What Taitz is asking for is not some interim action, but that she be given the relief she wants. Specifically, here is the emergency measures Taitz wants:

  1. Give Taitz a copy of a fraudulent tax return filed using her social-security number.
  2. Give Taitz copies of all fraudulent tax refund requests filed by people “believed to be illegal aliens.”
  3. Give Taitz paper copies of all social security applications of persons born over 120 years ago.
  4. Give the court a particular social security application that SSA has already told her in a prior lawsuit doesn’t exist.
  5. Same as 4, but released to the public.
  6. Order President Obama to explain his social-security number having a Connecticut geographic code
  7. Order President Obama to explain to the court why his Selective Service registration form has an incomplete postal cancellation stamp.

So what, exactly, is being stayed, and what is the emergency? Taitz has already filed and lost these lawsuits. (I’m not sure if she has sued over points 1 and 2.) And exactly how does a judge in Texas order Obama to explain something. Obama is not personally under Texas jurisdiction.

There is a second part of the “motion” relating to immigration issues. It’s the stuff Taitz already filed in Taitz v. Jeh Johnson. Why another lawsuit?

Note: The third Brownsville lawsuit is Taitz v. Burwell, a FOIA suit against the Department of Health and Human Services Case 1:14-cv-00264.


Dummett, Dummett, done

Hardly news that the Supreme Court yet again found no interest in hearing yet another birther lawsuit, this one from John Dummett (that we believe is pronounced with the stress on the last syllable) and Ed Noonan.

You can read the petition, prettied up in Supremish Court style, but the result was cert denied.


Arpaio seeks to avoid federal contempt hearing

Admits wrongdoing


According the Arizona Republic web site, Judge Snow says the April contempt hearing is still on. A settlement is possible if plaintiffs agree to terms, but the judge wants Arpaio to admit in open court his wrongdoing, and to pay money out of his own pocket.

H/t to the Stephen Lemons and the Phoenix New Times Blog for this story that interested readers will want to get from that source.

In a few words: Arpaio was scheduled to face a 4-day civil contempt hearing in April in the Melendres v. Arpaio case. The court ordered remedies after finding that Arpaio and his department were engaging in racial profiling. Arpaio has not obeyed the Court’s orders. Seeking to avoid a hearing (what Lemons calls a “de facto trial”), Arpaio has filed papers with the court “consent[ing] to a finding of civil contempt.”

Also get the story from KPHO in Phoenix.

Birther judge triggers constitutional crisis

Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, former WorldNetDaily writer and birther Roy Moore (looking gay after his election to the court) has triggered a constitutional crisis in Alabama after ordering judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of a federal judge’s ruling, that the U. S. Supreme Court declined to review. Probate Judge Al Booth in Autauga County said:

"I have the man who runs this state’s court system telling me not to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples," Booth said. "I have the federal judiciary telling me I will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"I want to uphold my oath. But what law do I follow?" he said. "Which constitution do I uphold?"

The head of Alabama’s Republican took the federal order to start issuing licenses to same-sex couples pretty hard:

The State of Alabama and the United States of America will reap God’s wrath if we embrace and condone things that are abhorrent to God, such as redefining marriage as anything other than a union between one man and one woman.

Read more at USA Today.

Are the Honolulu newspaper birth lists admissible in court as evidence of Obama’s place of birth?

Two competing Honolulu newspapers, The Honolulu Star-Bulletin and the Honolulu Advertiser, carried the Health Department list of births, showing a son born to the Obamas August 4, 1961. For some, these are the strongest evidence of President Obama’s birth in Hawaii because they are immune to modern tampering.

Strong as they are, would they be admissible in federal court? Are they excluded by the Hearsay Rule?

I believe that they well may be excluded. An important case on the admissibility of old newspapers is Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. 286 F.2d 388 (5th Cir. 1961).  Here’s a summary of the issue:

A clock tower at the Dallas County Courthouse fell, doing $100,000 in damage. The County filed a claim with the insurance company alleging that the structural failure was due to a lightning strike that happened a few days before. The insurance company countered that the damage was due to an existing structural fault in the building caused by a fire that occurred during the building’s construction in 1901. As proof of the fire, the insurance company offered a newspaper article from 1901 reporting the fire. The newspaper article was admitted, and the jury found in favor of the insurance company. The case was appealed on the question of whether the newspaper article was properly admitted. The circuit court said yes and the lower court was affirmed.

The newspaper article was not among the explicit exceptions to the Hearsay Rule, but was admissible because it was more likely to be reliable than someone’s memory after 56 years and it was unlikely that a better source of information could be found. The court said:

it was properly admissible because it of its necessity, trustworthiness, relevance, and materialness

The newspaper accounts of Obama’s birth are trustworthy, relevant and material. They are not, however, necessary. Obama’s birth certificate is prima facie evidence of where he was born, and the newspaper accounts aren’t necessary to establish that fact.1

Since that 1961 case, Rule 807 Residual Exception has been added to the Federal Rules of Evidence and it expands on the concept of necessity in 807(a) allowing the exception when:

(3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts;

Obama’s birth certificate falls under an explicit exception to hearsay, in Rule 803:

(9) Public Records of Vital Statistics. A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.

I am not a lawyer and the legal information you get from may may be worth no more than you paid for it. Your mileage may vary. Not responsible for items left in your car. If problems arise, consult your doctor. May contain forward-looking statements. Sold by weight, not by volume. Image enlarged to show details. May contain peanuts.

1This article assumes that President Obama is a defendant and in a position to offer his birth certificate as evidence.