Main Menu

Tag Archives | Federal rules of civil procedure

Doc foresees latest Taitz move in a dream

imageI mentioned briefly in a comment a couple of days ago that I had a dream, a really strange one, where I kept finding boxes of cranks and  boxes of dirt. It wasn’t obvious why I had this dream, but I think now that it was prophetic of the latest legal move of Orly Taitz in Grinols v. Electoral College.

Not long after being rebuffed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Taitz v Democrat Party of Mississippi, where she attempted to obtain a Writ of Mandamus to require the judge to declare Michael Astrue, former Commissioner of Social Security, in default for failing to respond to a defective service of the complaint, she turns around and files an appeal of Judge England’s refusal to find President Obama in default in Grinols, where the judge had explained in great detail why her service was defective in that case also.

imageThe legal form of the two appellate actions are different, one to force a judge to rule  with a writ of mandamus and the other an appeal of a ruling, but the underlying defect is the same: Orly Taitz doesn’t follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules when serving plaintiffs. Repeated legal failures makes one a crank, and I think that this is what my dream meant, particularly as Orly Taitz once said on her blog [link to Taitz web site]: “I used this motion to simply pour dirt on me.”

Note: there is a hearing on a motion to dismiss in this case on the 18th of this month.

Grinols Notice of Appeal and Ex Parte Expedited Motion0001 by orlytaitz1

How to serve the President with a lawsuit in his personal capacity in California federal court

I hope that my fellow Obots will not cast me out for lifting the veil of secrecy on the closely-guarded incantation of how to serve the President in his personal capacity. There has been an attempt to keep these dangerous weapons out of the hands of birthers like Orly Taitz and so, up until now, this information has only been available to the initiated in a classified federal court document, cryptically named “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” which is only available on a limited-access computer network called “The Internet.” It is not discussed publicly, but only whispered in the halls of certain elite institutions called “law schools.”

I am not a lawyer myself, but the information which I am about to disclose comes from one, who graduated from the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law and was in private practice as an attorney in California for 13 years. The following material pays special attention to the rules in force for federal district courts in California, where Orly Taitz is struggling mightily to achieve service on the President, but so far without success.

I am linking to the document, where the secret of serving the President of the United States in his personal capacity is detailed on Page 2, Line 14 through Page 3, Line 7. May God have mercy on my soul.

Huge defeat for Taitz in Mississippi

Where I grew up, they said that bad news comes in threes. That seemed to play out today as Orly Taitz and Montgomery Sibley both had losses in the Supreme Court and the angst at the Law Offices of Orly Taitz in Rancho Santa Margarita, California was  only increased by a further bitter disappointment in Mississippi.

Taitz had placed high hopes on getting a default judgment against Michael Astrue, commissioner of Social Security, who didn’t respond to her complaint in the case of Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi. She thought somehow that this non-response would erase federal privacy legislation and Social Security Administration policy, allowing her free reign to access SSA files on Obama in what she termed “post judgment discovery.”

Astrue had responded to Taitz lawsuits before. What was different about this one? The obvious conclusion I arrived at was that Taitz had, as she has done many times in the past, bungled service of the Defendant. As I have said before, one needn’t put too much effort into figuring the ins and outs of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as they relate to which thing(s) Taitz did wrong. If one is patient, the judge will explain it to everyone in clear, authoritative language, and that’s what happened to day from Judge Wingate. ECF 93 2013-02-19 – Taitz v DPM – Order Denying Default by Jack Ryan

Orly cries “wolf”

Orly Taitz has a penchant for interpreting judicial events as meaning her litigation targets are in default. She did it in Mississippi with Michael Astrue [link to Taitz web site] and she did it Indiana against the Secretary of State [link to Taitz web site]. And again against Barack Obama in the Judd case in California [link to Taitz web site]. Those are just since last October. She didn’t get a default judgment in any of these.

Well she’s at again, this time declaring Obama is in default in Grinols v. Electoral College [link to Taitz web site].  I am not a lawyer, and as I continue to do this web site I become more and more aware of how much I don’t know about the law and how it is difficult to substitute Google for a real legal education. Nevertheless, based on Orly’s track record and the presumed competence of Obama’s representation, I’m going out on a limb here and say that Taitz is wrong.

In the federal system there are two standards of response to the complaint in a civil lawsuit, one for ordinary folks and one for the government. This is detailed in FRCP 12(a). The normal 21-day response requirement is extended to 60 days when the United States or one of its Officers is sued in connection with their official duties. Orly Taitz is trying to sue Obama as a candidate, not as President, but she served him on January 4 through the Attorney General, and not personally. Since she served the government, only the government is obligated to respond, and they get 60 days. If Orly persists in saying that she is suing Obama personally, then she hasn’t served him at all, and the 21-day clock hasn’t even started.

Anyhow, Taitz has filed for a “expedited default judgment” against Obama and in that judgment she is asking the Court to declare Barack Obama ineligible to be President (point 8 in the proposed order).

Orly Taitz is crying “wolf” and wasting the taxpayers motion tilting at windmills.

Here’s Orly’s motion:

Continue Reading →

Service: a birther game of battleships

If you are not familiar with the pencil or board game of battleships, take a moment to check out the Wikipedia article. Battleships is a guessing game where one side knows where the battleships are, and the other takes blind shots until strategy helps to narrow down the possibilities.

Watching Orly Taitz trying to serve the President in his personal capacity rather reminds me of the game. The Obots know where the ship is, at least those who are attorneys, and the courts know where the ship is, but Orly Taitz seems to be taking blind shots at serving the President, and not applying much if any strategy. In the real battleships, after having missed the ship, one never makes the same guess again; this cannot be said of Taitz.

As with the battleships game, the Obots are keeping the method of serving the President in his personal capacity a secret, although this should be known to any law school graduate.  Before a party can attempt to enforce a subpoena, they must file proof of service with the Court. This Orly Taitz attempted to do for a subpoena to Barack Obama in the case of Grinols v. Electoral College. Here’s the proof of service document. From the proof of service, we see that Orly Taitz took three separate shots at the battleship, one at Obama and two at his “attorneys.”

While Obama is intended to be a party of this lawsuit, there is considerable doubt as to whether he has been properly served with the complaint. Orly Taitz says that she is suing the President in his personal capacity (as a candidate), but the complaint’s proof of service she filed shows service to the US Attorney General. That’s all messed up. According to the Eastern District of California Local Rules 250(5)(c), subpoenas to parties are allowed, so I don’t think it matters at this point whether Obama is a party or a non-party.

So here are some things this layman found wrong with what Taitz did:

  1. The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing subpoenas 45(b)(1) says: “If the subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection of premises before trial, then before it is served, a notice must be served on each party.” The parties in this action include the Electoral College, the Congress and a bunch of other folks. I see nothing in the court record that Taitz has made the mandatory notification to all  1080 (rough estimate) parties. One might argue that Taitz’s filing of the subpoena on the Court’s ECF system was adequate notice, except that the ECF filing was made on 1/27/2012, one day after the date indicated that the service was done.
  2. FRCP 45(b)(2) seems to say that the subpoena can only be issued within the district (or within 100 miles of it) or within the state. Taitz “served” her subpoenas for production of documents at her law office which is not within 100 miles of where the subpoena was “served.” Service outside this area requires court authorization, which the record does not show.
  3. There is a question as to whether service by certified mail is sufficient. Most courts require personal service. In fact the date on the proof of service is before it is conceivable that it could have been delivered by certified mail. In any case I would think that proof of service, if allowed by mail at all, requires some documentation that the party actually received it, not that it’s “in the mail.” That’s not in the court record.
  4. The proof of service requires “filing with the issuing court a statement showing the date and manner of service and the names of the persons served.” While the copy mailed to President Obama has his name on it, the ones to his attorneys were addressed to “his attorney” which hardly is the “name of the person served.”


Taitz annoys judge: sanctions threatened

It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

Pop quiz: Which federal agency is most concerned about and most diligent in enforcing the privacy of social-security numbers?

DING! Correct, the Social Security Administration.

And which federal agency is it unwise to sue with court filings containing plain text, unedited, personally identifying social security numbers? Nevertheless, our intrepid dental surgeon and sometimes attorney Orly Taitz in her lawsuit against the Social Security Administration, Tatiz v Astrue, did exactly that; the Social Security Administration noticed and objected; and the court vacated the filings telling Taitz to start over. That was June 2.

Perhaps Taitz fell asleep reading the page on the Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 (a)(1), about how to handle social-security numbers, at the Howard Taft online law school web site. No problem, the court reminded her and Taitz refiled her motion with the social-security numbers redacted (correctly showing only the last 4 numbers). That was June 14.

June 15 Taitz filed more motions with social-security numbers improperly redacted. The judge hinted that sanctions would have been imposed had the defendants asked for them and warned that the Court might impose sanctions on its own if it happened again. A clearly displeased judge said: “…wasting the Court’s time is not the way for  plaintiff to have any hope of prevailing in this case.”

Wow! That’ll teach her! (not) After some wrangling over who filed what Taitz, in the words of the court, made a “somewhat hysterical claim in her motion for consideration that there may be ‘an employee in this court, who is intentionally sabotaging’ her…” What followed on July 22 was another Taitz attempt to file yet another motion with improperly redacted social-security numbers. The court wrote:

Plaintiff is either toying with the court or displaying her own stupidity.

While no monetary sanctions were imposed in the July 25 order from Judge Royce C. Lamberth, the Court’s order is clearly a public humiliation.