Main Menu

Tag Archives | Brian Schatz

Taitz lawsuit target named to US Senate

Photo of Brian SchatzBrian Schatz, defendant in Orly Taitz’ Judd v. Obama lawsuit, was named by Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie to the U. S. Senate today to fill the seat of deceased Senator Daniel Inouye.

Like President Obama, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Schatz grew up in Hawaii and attended the same prestigious Punahou school. Schatz attended college in California and studied abroad in Kenya. Schatz also worked as a community organizer.

Schatz is best known in the Obama conspiracy community for his job as Hawaii Democratic Party Chair in 2008, and the one who signed  the Certificate of Nomination of Barack Obama as the State’s Democratic Nominee for President saying:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus… Barack Obama…

A bizarre headline appeared at WorldNetDaily on an article by Jerome Corsi:

Obama ignores senator’s dying wish

Appoints birth-certificate ally instead of Inouye’s choice

Somebody explain to Corsi that the President doesn’t appoint Senators.

Learn more:

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.


Dealing with frivolous litigation, whether filed by a seasoned attorney or a novice pro se litigant, is a bit like wrangling cats.

Robert J. Davis

imageI’m still looking for a statute or rule that prevents this, but what I observe is that Orly Taitz is suing the same people for the same thing in different courts. Orly herself admits this in her notice of an application to consolidate three of her cases across multiple jurisdictions:

…cases, which were filed in several jurisdiction, but have in the core
the same nucleus of facts dealing with Candidate for President Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and fraudulently obtained Social Security number used to get on the ballot by fraud. (Judd 18)

I hold the degree of De Facto Doctor Juris Pro Hac Vice, which gives me the authority to read Wikipedia articles and summarize them on this blog.

One Wikipedia article I read was about collateral estoppel. This principle says that if you lose your case, you can’t just sue the same party again for the same thing under a different cause of action. Invocation of collateral estoppel requires a final judgment in a case, and all of the three (Taitz v. Sebelius, Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi and Judd v. Obama) are ongoing. Collateral estoppel might apply to defendant Michael Astrue of the Social Security Administration since he was sued previously by Taitz and won.

Another principle codified in 28 USC § 1927 is a prohibition against needlessly multiplying proceedings, but that seems to apply only within a single case.

Sanctions can be imposed for bringing a frivolous lawsuit, and that may be the remedy here. See Federal Rule 11 and 42 U.S.C § 1988(b).

The following table details the overlap of defendants in the three active Taitz federal Obama lawsuits. She is suing 36 parties in total.

Taitz v. Sebelius Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi Judd v. Obama
Barrack Hussein Obama Barrack Hussein Obama Barrack Hussein Obama
Nancy Pelosi Nancy Pelosi Nancy Pelosi
Brian Schatz   Brian Schatz
Lynn Matusow   Lynn Matusow
Alvin Onaka Alvin Onaka Alvin Onaka
Michael Astrue Michael Astrue Michael Astrue
Eric Holder   Eric Holder
William A Chatfield   William A Chatfield
Alice Travis Germond   Alice Travis Germond
  Obama for America Obama for America
+ 1 other + 3 others + 22 others

Hawaii State Senate candidate serves summons in birther lawsuits (major revision)



Senate Candidate Larry Fenton served summons to  State Vital Records Registrar Alvin T. Onaka, Hawaii Department of Health Director Loretta Fuddy and current and former Democratic Party officials Brian Schatz and Lynne Matusow in two of Orly Taitz’ federal lawsuits. Mr. Fenton is up to his eyeballs in birther conspiracy theories and talking points in his press release:


Today candidate for State Senate Larry Fenton (R) served summons in two cases involving state government employees accused of aiding and abetting President Obama in fraudulently obtaining ballot access through false and altered documentation. Papers were served for Dr. Alvin T. Onaka and Director Loretta Fuddy at the Hawaii State Department of Health, Lt. Governor Brian Schatz at the State Capitol, the State of Hawaii Attorney General’s office, and for Lynne Matusow at Hawaii State Democrat Party Headquarters in Ward Center.

In Judd v. Obama, a case filed in US District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division, the complaint alleges that Defendant 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 from the state of Hawaii. Onaka refused to provide an original birth certificate or original microfilm for examination. Also defendant’s Brian Schatz and Lynne Matusow are alleged to have aided and abetted fraud committed by Obama when they signed an altered/falsified Official Certification Of Nomination form from the Hawaii Department of Elections and removed the necessary wording “eligible according to the US Constitution” from the document in 2008.

In the other case, Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi, a case filed in the First Judicial District Court in Jackson, Mississippi, defendant Loretta Fuddy is alleged to have aided and abetted Obama in committing elections fraud by covering up the fact that Obama is using a forged birth certificate. Defendant Alvin Onaka is alleged to have aided and abetted Obama and was complicit in the cover up of the fact that Obama is using a forged birth certificate. Onaka is alleged to have known that the “document” was a computer generated forgery, that the security image and an image of his stamp were brought from another document. For complete case information see attached links.

Taitz has been plagued by the inability to properly serve defendants in her many lawsuits. In Mississippi, Judge Wingate gave her 2 weeks to serve her defendants properly. Could this order have finally sunk in?

Fenton is originally from Glendale, California, and an Army veteran. His politics have changed over the years. Originally a supporter of Ronald Reagan, he became a Democrat supporting the election of Bill Clinton, but most recently becoming a Republican after 2010. His personal saying is “Life’s a beach.” On his Facebook favorites is listed Taitz links to the Fenton campaign web site on the right sidebar of her own web site

I’m personally angry about these multiple lawsuits over the same thing. Orly Taitz herself has 3 active lawsuits (California, Mississippi and Texas) against, for example, Alvin Onaka, not to mention several lawsuits, state and federal, already dismissed.

Orly’s California case moving

The case of Keith Judd et al v. Barack Obama et al was filed in California state court, but after an unfavorable ruling, Orly Taitz “removed” it to federal court. This seems to be an example of Orly law, since in traditional law, only defendants remove cases. Nonetheless, something happened and now there is a case that appears on the docket for the California Central District Court.

Familiar face

The new judge presiding over the case is none other than the Honorable David O. Carter, fully experienced in the unique legal approach of Taitz from the case of Barnett v. Obama. He saw that case transmogrify from a challenge to Obama’s election to a RICO action, and saw first hand her inability to properly serve President Obama (Orly’s volunteer left the summons with a male clerk, a mail clerk, or was it a male mail clerk?).

The present case is curious because the court docket doesn’t show a complaint. The only copy we have is the final draft from the Taitz web site. Whether the case truly exists in federal court is something from a branch of law too esoteric for me (the authority Taitz cites, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, seems to apply only to removal by defendants), but I do note that Judge Carter accepted the transfer of the case from another federal judge pursuant to General Order 08-05 (Been There, Done That). The court did issue summons.

Moved, removed, or created ex nihilo

The Docket indicates that Orly Taitz filed an electronic copy and a paper copy of her notice of removal and that they weren’t the same (Taitz says they are). Judge Carter ordered Taitz to file a correct electronic copy by September 25. This is the markup made by the Superior Court court clerk:

Continue Reading →

Taitz v. everybody else: Orly’s massive lawsuit

A “do over” of the last four years is what Orly Taitz seems to be asking for in her latest filing in California, Judd v. Obama [link to complaint on Taitz web site]. This is the amended complaint in the case that was originally styled Taitz v. Obama, Feinstein, Emken et al.

Photo of Plaintiff Keith JuddSince Orly Taitz is still an attorney in California, she’s representing herself as well as a collection of the usual birther litigants, but this time the lead plaintiff is Keith Judd (aka “Dark Priest” right), a candidate for President. Recall that Judd got 40% of the Democratic primary vote in West Virginia and is supposed to be released from prison next June. Judd claims that he should have gotten all of West Virginia’s votes at the Democratic Convention because Obama wasn’t eligible. It seems a little late, though, to be pressing that claim.

What is amazing is the list of defendants, including pretty much everyone that has ever crossed Orly Taitz, even federal judge Clay D. Land who sanctioned her in Georgia. She’s got Obama in her sights of course, plus the Social Security Administrator, Selective Service, the secretaries of state of Virginia, Georgia, California and New Hampshire. She has the Republicans in California, her Republican opponent in the California Senate race, a pile of news organizations (MSNBC, CNN, The Daily Beast, Forbes Magazine and KFI AM), and the US Attorney General and even the Postmaster General. The State of Hawaii and the Democrats get their place at the table too–31 defendants all told.

Not only are there several plaintiffs and many defendants, in addition to filing the case in the US District Court for Central District of California, Southern Division, it is also being sent to the Department of justice, Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Public Integrity Unit of the Department of Justice, House of Representatives Oversight committee, Judiciary Committee, Elections subcommittee, Civil Rights Commission of the United Nations, International Criminal Bar Panel in Haague (sic), and the Inter-American commission for Human Rights.

The 110-page complaint (not including exhibits) includes an incoherent mix of causes of action as diverse as the list of defendants. I hesitate to try to impose order on this thing, but I’ll take a shot at the high points. Orly is taking aim at:

  • Republicans, for Orly’s loss in the California Senate Race (she claims fraud)
  • Government agencies (Social Security, Selective Service, the US Postal Service) that won’t do what she wants
  • The State of Hawaii that won’t bend their laws to let Orly play detective
  • Democrats who nominated Obama, or said he is eligible
  • People in the media who have said not nice things about Orly
  • Secretaries of State and elections commissions who are putting Obama on the ballot even though Orly told them not to
  • Everybody who has engaged in a criminal conspiracy to keep her from getting Obama out of office.
  • The federal judge who sanctioned her for her previous antics in court

Basically Orly is trying to re-litigate all of her prior losses in court over the last 4 years, hold the California Republican Senate Primary again, and to punish the media for speaking ill of her. It’s as if Orly never learned one essential English word: “no.”

Since Orly has pretty much lost all of these cases already, I can imagine that the defendants will looking for monetary damages for having to defend a frivolous lawsuit. Skimming Orly’s usual nonsense might be light entertainment for some, but it has to be a royal pain for the attorneys and law clerks to go through these things point by point, citing applicable law as to why they should be dismissed. By suing everybody under the sun, she’s opening herself up for some serious sanctions and assessments of costs and fees. Orly’s mania may have finally ruined her.