Main Menu

Tag Archives | Barnett v. Obama

Klayman’s Kopy Kat lawsuit

It seems that Larry Klayman exhibits a curious pattern of behavior, following Orly Taitz around and copying her lawsuits.

Taitz, as you know, was one of the early attorneys filing lawsuits over Barack Obama’s eligibility, starting with the Alan Keyes lawsuit in California. Taitz later became plaintiff in her own lawsuits over the issue. Larry Klayman followed suit (no pun intended) in 2012 representing Michael Voeltz in Florida, and most recently himself petitioning to have Barack Obama deported, probably as a prelude to filing a lawsuit on his own behalf.

Now it’s happened again. Orly Taitz broke new ground with her lawsuit against the government to stop immigration from countries with active Ebola outbreaks and to quarantine them. She certainly caught the leading edge of that one, before the first person became sick in the United States of the disease. Now Klayman, writing in his WorldNetDaily column, says he is preparing a similar suit in response to what he calls “Ebola-gate.” He writes:

In the interim, I am fashioning a lawsuit to force Obama to curtail travel and immigration from Liberia and the rest of West Africa until we know we can combat the deadly Ebola outbreak. And, immigration from all Muslim nations where terrorists have a beachhead must also be immediately stopped.

Oh, yes, he has a thing about Muslims too.

Winnowing the Grinols 2

Don’t ask me what the title means—I just thought it sounded snappy. The article is about Orly Taitz’ appeal in the case of Grinols v. Electoral College.

The case, involving several issues regarding the 2012 election, was dismissed April 22, 2013 by federal Judge Morris England after hearing oral arguments on the motion to dismiss. You can read more about the grounds for dismissal in my article, “Things heat up for Monday face-off in Grinols.” When a judge dismisses a case like this, it means that the case cannot proceed as a matter of law. Taitz’ only recourse in an appeal is to argue that the judge made an error in the application of the law and should she win the appeal, it would mean that the case would be sent back to the lower court for trial.

You can read her 63-page opening brief filed October 29 for yourself. So what is Taitz’ rationale for the appeal (besides her general tendency to refuse to take “no” for an answer)?

Taitz raises 13 issues in the appeal, which I will catalog here:

  1. The Court shouldn’t have allowed the US Attorney to file a response on behalf of Congress, because some Congressmen weren’t notified about the suit. Taitz says that the “U.S. attorneys defrauded the court.”
  2. The Court should have issued a default judgment against President Obama because he didn’t file a timely response. The issue here is whether he was properly served (and he wasn’t).
  3. The Court should not have said that it lacked jurisdiction (Taitz cites Peta Lindsey [sic] v. Bowen). Peta Lindsay v. Bowen did not involve the court ruling on the eligibility of a candidate. She also cites Cleaver v. Jordan and Fulani v. Hogsett. None of the cases are relevant.
  4. The Court shouldn’t have said the case was moot. Taitz cites Keyes v. Obama where a case was brought on Inauguration Day. The problem with relying on Keyes is that the court of appeals stated that after the election plaintiffs no longer had any standing as candidates, leaving Taitz with no plaintiffs with standing.
  5. The Court should have decided that all the plaintiffs had standing, not just Judd (who had been a candidate).
  6. The Count should have ruled on Taitz’ claim that over one million votes in California were from defective registrations. No explanation is given why the Court should have done this.
  7. Continuation of 6.
  8. The Court should not have followed what other courts did, and not rule on Taitz’ social-security number claims.
  9. The Court should not have found that December 12 is before December 17 (she thinks they did, but …).
  10. The Court should have let Taitz file more stuff
  11. The Court should have recognized that Barack Obama does not legally exist. (There is some guy named Soetoro, Soebarkah.)
  12. See 13.
  13. The Court should have decided Obama can’t be President because his Selective Service application doesn’t have a visible year “19” on it.

In my analysis of the case, there is very little legal substance to it. The most important point is the first one where Taitz claims that the Court failed to follow precedent when it decided that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on a presidential candidate’s eligibility. Taitz is wrong that her citations are on point. The Cleaver case was not in federal court and none of the cases involved the court ruling on eligibility. Gary Kreep, in the appeal of Keyes v. Bowen, did a better job than Taitz, arguing rather that there is no precedent for not deciding the issue in court, and that no statute specifically grants to Congress the right to decide eligibility.

Taitz repeatedly claims that the court “ignored the evidence,” but of course evidence really isn’t at issue when ruling on a motion to dismiss.

The appellees have asked for more time to respond, and their responses are due by December 30, 2013.

Commentary

The only interesting thing about the case is one judicial question that I do not think has ever been answered definitively, namely does any court have jurisdiction to decide on the eligibility of a presidential candidate? Taitz bollixed her citations in favor of the proposition that courts can decide who is eligible and who is not, and keep them off the ballot. The precedent of Robinson v. Bowen from the Northern District of California seems on point for the other side. Judge Alsup wrote:

Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review — if any — should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.

Robinson was not appealed. The Ninth Circuit dodged the political question argument in its decision in Keyes | Barnett v. Obama, affirming the dismissal, but on other grounds.

Judd case returned to Judge Carter

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.

California Bar responds to complaint

So now we know that Orly Taitz filed a complaint with the California Bar against Scott Tepper, an attorney that is appearing pro hac vice against her in the Mississippi ballot challenge filed by Taitz. In her world, Obama is a fraud and everyone who defends him is a criminal conspirator. While this is classic conspiracy theory thinking, we don’t usually see it played out in official channels, here the courts and the bar association.

Taitz complained specifically that Tepper had presented a legible copy of Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate to the Mississippi District Court to replace the mostly unreadable copy that Taitz herself had previously submitted to the same Court. Taitz moved for sanctions against Tepper in Mississippi, and Tepper subsequently provided a verification of authenticity from the State of Hawaii for all the information on the certificate.

The California Bar in response to Taitz replied in essence that it doesn’t decide on the authenticity of documents and that the courts and law enforcement are the ones to deal with allegations of criminal fraud.

Specifically the reply from the California Bar (page  78 in this attachment) states:

Your complaint also concerns a matter of national security which is beyond the scope of the State Bar.

Without a copy of the Taitz complaint, it’s not possible to know exactly what the additional “matter” referenced here is. Taitz, however, characterizes it as the forged birth certificate in her recent motion to re-open the dismissed Barnett v. Obama federal lawsuit in California.

Zombies sighted in California

Long dead case comes to life

When I think of the Keyes v. Obama lawsuit, later named Barnett v. Obama in California, I feel like I’m discussing ancient birther history. It was Orly Taitz’ first birther case, I think, recruited by the unsuspecting Gary Kreep (much bad blood developed between the two). It’s been dead for years.

Orly Taitz has a filed a motion to reconsider the RICO portion of her case, that Judge David O. Carter dismissed, on the basis of new “evidence.” The evidence is Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s affidavit entered in another case saying that he “believes” that fraud has “likely” been committed in Barack Obama’s documents. Of course, what Arpaio believes is not evidence, nor is he even willing to point the finger at Barack Obama as the culprit. It’s a waste of time, but Orly is like the Energizer Bunny, and just keeps on filing and filing and giving me something to write about.

In Orly’s mind, Barack Obama is at the center of a massive criminal conspiracy, and in her RICO action Taitz names the conspirators as defendants:

  • Barack Obama, President of the United States
  • Alvin Onaka, State Registrar of Hawaii
  • Michael Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
  • Obama for America, official campaign organization
  • Brian Schatz, former chair Hawaii Democratic Party
  • Lynn Matusow, former chair Hawaii Democratic Party
  • Nancy Pelosi, former chair of the National Democratic Convention
  • Alice Germond, former secretary of the National Democratic Convention
  • Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States
  • Loretta Fuddy, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health
  • William A.  Chatfield, former director of the Selective Service System

While Taitz clearly says that this case is only about the RICO portion of her original suit, she still asks f0r a declaratory judgment.

Choice quotes:

Orly Taitz, attorney in this case brought Quo Warranto in DC, however presiding judge in that case simply twisted the statute and claimed that Quo Warranto can be brought only by the Attorney General [or United States Attorney], which of course is not the case and represents a perversion of the statute. …

New evidence submitted herein is as follows. Plaintiffs are submitting a true and correct sworn affidavit of Sheriff Joseph Arpaio of Maricopa county (sic) attesting to the fact that Obama’s birth certificate, selective service certificate (sic) and Social Security card are fraudulent and forged (Exhibit 1). … [Note: in the barely legible attachment of this affidavit, one page is upside down and the other is sideways.]

Defendant Alvin Onaka, Registrar of the State of Hawaii, aided and abetted Obama and was complicit in the cover up of the fact that Obama is using a forged birth certificate. …

Defendant Michael Astrue, commissioner of the Social Security (sic), aided and abetted Obama by covering up the fact that Barack Obama is fraudulently using a Connecticut Social Security number. …

Here’s her motion:

 

Continue Reading →

Unripe, ripe and rotten

One of the persistent problems for birther plaintiffs is timing1.  The venerable case of Barnett v. Obama, just denied by the US Supreme Court, suffered from being filed too late (after the Presidential Inauguration). The political candidate plaintiffs were no longer candidates by then, and the court had no power to remove a sitting president and so could not grant the relief sought. No standing, no case.

Just the opposite appears to be the case in the Florida ballot challenge of Voeltz v. Obama. Larry Klayman, representing Voeltz, argues that the Court should order the Florida Secretary of State to certify Barack Obama’s eligibility for President before placing him on the ballot and an injunction against Obama being on the Ballot. The Florida Secretary of State argues that Obama has not been nominated by the Democratic Party yet and as such the suit is not ripe, not ready to be heard.

This problem of ripeness seems to be a sticky one. One needs a “perfect storm” of an applicable statue, a plaintiff with an actual injury in fact, and something the court can do to redress the complaint.

While I don’t see any real legal significance to the Voeltz lawsuit, it makes for a good theater. We have the high-profile attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch, and affidavits submitted by Jerome Corsi, Mike Zullo and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. WorldNetDaily says that it will provide a video feed and claims are made that finally, once and for all, a court is going to rule on the definition of “natural born citizen.” We are somewhat hampered by the lack of the text of defense motions and orders, having  to rely solely on what Klayman represents, meaning a somewhat “sensational” bias.

A hearing is scheduled for June 18 in Tallahassee.

Read more:


1One of the persistent problems for me is bananas.