Main Menu

Tag Archives | Jack Ryan

Things heat up for Monday face-off in Grinols

A hearing is scheduled for next Monday, April 22, in the case of Grinols v. Electoral College and the paperwork is arriving in advance of it. The subject of the hearing, according to Judge England’s order is to hear oral arguments on the motions to dismiss, and in particular to the questions:

  • Mootness
  • Standing
  • Political question doctrine
  • Speech and Debate Clause
  • Service of process on defendants

Yesterday, Plaintiff’s attorney Orly Taitz filed an Ex-parte Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss. Why ex parte? Because Taitz says she filed the motion too late to give the Defendants proper notice, and that would only be proper in an emergency and for some kind of temporary relief.


Taitz does not justify her tardy filing, and I dare say Judge England will have some choice words for Taitz. His order from April 4 suggests that Taitz’s emergency maneuver is unnecessary. The present argument repeats Taitz’ earlier motion to recuse, about which England wrote in his order:

Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Recuse Counsel for Defendants and Motion to Expedite under Local Rule 144” (ECF NO. 102) currently set for April 18, 2013 is VACATED in light of the hearing on the motions to dismiss.

Meanwhile the California State Defendants have filed a brief in support of the motion to dismiss saying:

  • This case is moot as to claims concerning the reelection of Barack Obama.
  • This case presents a nonjusticiable political question.
  • Plaintiffs fail to state an equal protection claim for “invalid” registration.
  • Plaintiffs do not state a claim under 5 U.S.C. § 3328.

Just a word on that last one. Federal law says that people born after 1959 who did not comply with the draft registration cannot be appointed to a position in an “Executive agency.” The California Defendants point out that Obama was elected, not appointed. I would point out that the Office of the President is not an Executive agency. This contention has Taitz all upset, railing that California says Obama can get away with selective-service fraud [Link to Taitz web site]. Taitz is wrong. California didn’t say selective-service fraud is “OK,” just that Taitz is wrong on the law. A President can be prosecuted for fraud after leaving office.

On other fronts, Taitz is dabbling in rumors about the Boston Marathon bombing yesterday, emphasizing her themes of anti-Muslim bigotry and official complicity in crimes.

Taitz under attack, surrounded–threats loom

While I’m at the dentist’s office, you can read this tale of Orly Taitz inserting herself where she is not wanted, but herself found wanting a legal theory to support her action.

Thanks to the Jack Ryan collection for this tidbit that contains some perhaps over-the-top language, which I borrowed for the headline.

Taitz’ motion is subject to attack on many fronts; between Plaintiffs and the Defendants, she is surrounded.

In sum, Taitz has not articulated any specific common question of law or fact, much less one compelling enough to overcome the looming threats of delay and undue prejudice.

Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge

Judicial Watch v King (SD Ind) – Order Denying Taitz Motion to Intevene by Jack Ryan

Taitz: Grinols emergency appellate filing

So what else is new? Orly’s trying to get the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to demand that Judge England do something or other in the case of Grinols v. Electoral College. It’s an emergency because Obama, well, Obama is PRESIDENTING! What Taitz is asking the Court of Appeals to do is order the Trial Court to declare Obama in default in the Grinols case, even though she clearly never served him with the complaint in the capacity in which she is suing him. She also wants the US Attorney investigated for his courtesy appearance for President Obama.

Oh, did I mention that she copied the International Criminal Bar and the UN Commission for Civil Rights Defenders1? What do you get if you do a Google image search for "united nations Commission for Civil Rights Defenders"?


The brief is 162 pages long with attachments such as the Zullo affidavit, Irey stuff, a screen print of an article by Jerome Corsi, Census forms, FOIA dumps—in fact just about every imaginable thing EXCEPT a proof of service showing that Obama had been served in his personal capacity and is in default. What a maroon!

OK, correction. Sometimes the crazy gets too strong to report it. Taitz is not suing Obama in his personal capacity; she is suing him as a candidate. On what planet is Barack Obama a candidate?

Continue Reading →

Taitz makes amends

So we all remember Orly Taitz’ lawsuit in California, Grinols v. Electoral College, where she, several minor party candidates and one Democratic presidential candidate in one state were suing to prevent Barack Obama from becoming President, by stopping California from sending its electoral votes to the Senate, stopping the Congress from counting the electoral votes, and preventing Obama from taking the oath of office. The US District Court for the Eastern District of California didn’t stay any of those things and they all took place, making a hash of what Taitz was trying to do in her lawsuit.

The State of California moved to dismiss as to them on the grounds of mootness, but before the Court could rule on that, Taitz has filed her First Amended Complaint (Feb. 11). Given the significant change in the landscape between her original complaint and the subsequent inauguration of Barack Obama for his second term as President, one would expect that the Amended Complaint (embedded below) would take this into account.

First Taitz emphasizes (using boldface type) that Barack Obama is being sued in his individual capacity, as a candidate for office, not as President. Tait should have learned from the loss of her appeal of Barnett v. Obama that after the election persons are no longer candidates. Taitz claims Obama is in default as to the original complaint. Of course the court doesn’t give special consideration for boldfaced type. Taitz doesn’t understand that once she files the amended complaint, the original complaint goes away and the court isn’t going to declare Obama in default under it, even if she had served him with that original complaint (which she did not). She should know that about the amended complaint, since she lost an appeal in Liberi v. Taitz for that very reason (or she should know it because she went to law school).

The first novelty in the case is the expanded list of aliases for the President:

  • Barack (Barry) Soetoro
  • Barack Hussein Soebarkah
  • Barack Hussein Obama
  • Barack A. Obama
  • Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel
  • S. A. Dunham (?)

Other defendants are:

  • The Governor of California
  • The Electoral College
  • The Congress

Taitz recounts her fantasies about Obama as if they were fact, but I guess the meat of the matter is what relief Taitz is now seeking. She is seeking declaratory relief. Specifically, Taitz is asking the Court to declare that President Obama fraudulently applied to be a candidate in California. I always thought (but then I am not a lawyer) that declaratory relief was something to prevent an imminent future controversy and that what Taitz is trying to do is moot. But she clearly demonstrates that it is not with the bald faced bold faced declaration: “Declaratory relief in this case is not moot.” The actual discussion of this point doesn’t seem to have any further legal argument, but is only a narrative of what happened from Taitz’ point of view. Nowhere does Taitz lay out how the Plaintiffs have standing to request a declaratory judgment.

The other prong of her lawsuit, and this is where the Governor of California comes in, is an unrelated matter concerning the voter rolls in California. Public records show that large number of California voter registration records are incomplete in one way or another, for example lacking valid birth dates of the registrants. Taitz requests injunctive relief to “clean up the rolls” and the entire description of this injunctive relief is inserted in the following hypothetical:

Unless there is a declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to clean up California roles and having a special election, the same invalid and/or fraudulent voter registrations will be used in further elections.

Taitz never details what the special election is for. I am further at a loss as to why the Electoral College (which is not an entity that can be sued) nor the Congress are parties. Taitz herself has no standing to sue Barack Obama, but she tags on anyway.

I won’t go into the punctuation and grammar, which is bad. The whole thing is in insult to the Court, so sloppily it is constructed and argued. It’s pathetic.

Read the First Amended Complaint:

Continue Reading →

Index to subpoenas in Grinols case

As a service to the readership, I am compiling this index to the revised subpoenas issued by Orly Taitz in the Grinols v. Electoral College case.

Specifically, Judge England in a January 18th order granting Defendants more time to respond and ordering Taitz to modify the subpoenas stated:

A-one week (sic) response time would be unreasonable at any time during the year…

So Taitz issued one revised subpoena on January 26, with responses due February 4 (6 business days later) to Barack Obama. Other revised subpoenas have not yet appeared on the court docket, but will be added here when and if they appear.

Also in this case, the State of California today (January 28) moved to dismiss the case as to them as moot and also filed this declaration.

Recipient Due Document Exists?
Barack Obama 2/4/12 Passport used to travel to Pakistan 1981-3 Maybe
    Birth Certificate on file at Kapiolani Hosp. Unlikely
    Certified copy of birth certificate Yes
    Microfilm of birth certificate Unavailable to Obama
    Occidental College registration Unlikely
    SS-5 Social Security Application Likely, but FOIA requests take a while
    School Registrations 1967-1969 showing citizenship Unlikely
    1968 passport Maybe
    Indonesian passports and immigration and naturalization papers No
    Kenyan passports and immigration and naturalization papers No
    British passports and immigration and naturalization papers No
Barbara Milkuski 2/4/2013 “Copy of any and all documents by ‘experts’, who according to Senator Milulski ‘authenticated’ birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama posted on the Maybe
    True and correct copy of the original 1961 typewritten genuine birth certificate issued by the Health department of Hawaii. Yes. It’s on the White House web site.


Read more:

Winnowing the Grinols

In form, Grinols v. Electoral College is an extremely important case. The 2012 Presidential Election hangs in the balance. Pending before the Court is a motion for a temporary restraining order that would stay the Constitution itself and could declare Barack Obama ineligible for the Presidency. In substance, it is just a crank with no legal standing spouting some conspiracy theories and asking for something that has no basis in law.

The motions are filed for the hearing January 3 on Orly Taitz’ motion for a temporary restraining order in the case of Grinols v. Electoral College. Taitz wants to stop Congress from certifying the the election on January 4.

Defendants filed notices of objection, and Taitz has replied. (See links to documents at the end of the article.) As I see it, there are five major issues in this case:

  1. Injunction against California defendants is moot
  2. Proper service of Defendants
  3. Representation of Obama by the US Attorney
  4. Standing of Plaintiffs
  5. Jurisdiction of the Court

The California Defendants provided a copy of the certification of the Electoral College vote that had been sent to the President of the Senate on or before Taitz filed her motion for a temporary restraining order. They say that it’s too late for the court to stop them from doing what’s already done. Taitz, amazingly, says it’s not moot, but I cannot explain her reasoning.

The Federal Defendants (Obama, Biden and the Congress) argue that service was defective, that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require service by “registered or certified mail.” Taitz claims that Federal Express is “registered or certified mail,” although she provides no precedent. FRCP 4 (g)(i)(1)(A)(ii)(B) says specifically:

send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United States attorney’s office

Do you think FedEx might file an amicus brief here? Sorry Orly, but this has been decided already in the 9th Circuit case of Magnuson v. Video Yesteryear. The Court, noting some ambiguity in the law, cited a number of cases on point including one from the 7th Circuit that concluded that “delivery by Federal Express is not ‘mail’ for the purposes of Rule 4.” This is somewhat complex and real attorneys might want to do a more careful analysis of this issue. Taitz also didn’t address the complaint to the “civil-process clerk.” Continue Reading →