Main Menu

Tag Archives | Laurie Roth

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 radio

imageOrly Taitz says she will be be doing an interview for Laurie Roth’s radio show this afternoon at 5 PM Pacific time (I think that’s UTC – 7 in the Summer). I don’t know when it will be broadcast. Check Roths’ web page for listening links.

You may remember that Roth was one of the Plaintiffs in the Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi lawsuit. She wrote the court asking to be excused from the case due to her injuries from a motorcycle accident (that happened in 2005 😯 ).

As the birthers turn or “Ex Lax”

November 7

Mississippi plaintiff Dr. Laurie Roth, motorcycle enthusiast, erstwhile presidential candidate and talk show host, wrote a letter to Judge Wingate in Mississippi in the case of Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi, asking to be removed a plaintiff.

Roth, not having filed any documents in the case, nor to my knowledge even  signed the “First amended complaint” that added her as a plaintiff, seemed to be just along for the ride as Orly Taitz, the lead plaintiff, attempted to purge the country of people who have slighted her. It’s not as simple as just asking, now that the Defense has responded to the complaint (and an Answer was filed 4/25/2012). The Defense can exact conditions, and one of the conditions they might exact is in the withdrawal letter itself, in the phrase:

I…have no intention of becoming a plaintiff in any other legal action against President Barack Obama.

Whether Roth is being candid with the court pleading medical problems and financial difficulty is no concern of mine, but it is rather odd-seeming that she didn’t include a doctor’s note to back up her claims.

November 25

A second plaintiff, Leah Lax, states in a filing docketed by the Court today that she sent an email on July 3 to Taitz asking that she be withdrawn as a plaintiff in the case, and says now that the continuing inclusion of her name on documents filed by Orly Taitz is “Fraud,” and noting that the phrase “pro se” is not present after Lax’s name on those filings. Since Orly Taitz was not representing Lax, it is unclear why Lax asked Taitz to remove  her as a Plaintiff in the case, rather than asking the Court to do this (I could find nothing in the record of Lax filing anything with the court in July). In the December 6,  2011, engagement letter between the two it was made clear that Lax was not being represented by Taitz in states where Taitz was not admitted to practice, but was in California and states where Taitz was admitted pro hac vice.

Lax contends that it was never her intent to be part of the RICCO (sic) case against Obama (the First amended complaint in Mississippi where Lax was added as as a Plaintiff). However, in the engagement letter, Lax stated that she would be a co-plaintiff or represented by Taitz in all filings against Obama in all 50 states. Lax alleges that she didn’t sign the Mississippi complaint, but that Taitz “pasted her signature” on it. I note that the Mississippi complaint was not signed by Lax at all, only marked with “/s/”.

Lax also contends that Taitz made medical information about Lax public in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). That last charge is bogus because Lax is not a patient of Orly Taitz and so HIPAA doesn’t apply1; however, even though Taitz was not representing Lax in Mississippi, she was in other states, and this disclosure, if it occurred, could well be a violation of attorney-client confidentiality.

generic computer hacker imageLike Orly Taitz, Lax is angry with commenters at the Fogbow for making fun of her. Lax seems to be confused, believing that Mississippi attorney Sam Begley is a member of the Fogbow forum and can tell folks there to be nice; Begley, to my knowledge, does not have a Fogbow account. In what may be a case of libel per se, Lax identifies a particular on-line screen name, SueDB, who posts here and at the Fogbow as the hacker and “identity thief” and says “her IP address matches the person who allegedly broke into my e commerce account.” It would seem that this IP address match is not actually based on evidence, but upon belief. Lax perhaps gives a hint to the reason for her interest in anti-Obama litigation when she accuses, in another email filed with the court, that the Fogbow members “consist of all Muslims.”

Lax asks for unspecified sanctions against Taitz for using her name in court filings after July 3. She also intends to press charges against whoever hacked her email account and sent out porn to her contact list, although the connection of this allegation to the Mississippi lawsuit is unclear. Read the Lax motion:

Continue Reading →

De Tar-Baby

The Tar-Baby is a fictional character from the Uncle Remus stories. The figure, made of tar fashioned by Br’er Fox was a trap for Br’er Rabbit, who once in contact with the sticky form became more and more firmly held as he struggled to get free. The Taitz v Democrat Party of Mississippi lawsuit may be just such a trap.

Judge Wingate had ordered all Plaintiffs in the case to appear in Court yesterday. Orly Taitz was there, with Brian Fedorka—the others were not. So what of Laurie Roth, Leah Lax and Tom MacLeran? Some comments were made in Court that they were sick; Lax has cancer. The Judge stated that they must provide a Doctor’s note, or otherwise there would be “consequences.”

It was also reported that these three wanted to withdraw from the suit entirely, but there were objections from all of the Defendants. A Plaintiff cannot simply withdraw after a responsive pleading has been made by the Defendants, and Defendants here don’t want to just let them off to be able to sue again. They want a judgment against them so that the principle of res judicata prevents them from filing an other suit. Threatening remarks have come from the Democratic Defendants that potentially ruinous sanctions would be sought against Taitz and perhaps other Defendants.

image“‘Tu’n me loose, fo’ I kick de natchul stuffin’ outen you,’ sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, but de Tar-Baby, she ain’t sayin’ nuthin’. She des hilt on, en de Brer Rabbit lose de use er his feet in de same way. Brer Fox, he lay low. Den Brer Rabbit squall out dat ef de Tar-Baby don’t tu’n ‘im loose he butt ‘er cranksided. En den he butted, en his head got stuck. Den Brer Fox, he sa’ntered fort’, lookin’ dez ez innercent ez wunner yo’ mammy’s mockin’-birds.1

One might remark that Taitz was ground to a powder during the 5-hour ordeal of legal arguments yesterday, where Taitz was repeatedly asked for statutes and authorities for what she was trying to do, and proved unable to provide any. Taitz was said to be at her best yesterday, but it was not good enough.


1Loose translation from Dr. Conspiracy:

“Turn me loose, before I kick the natural stuffing out of you,” said Brother Rabbit, but the Tar-Baby said nothing. She just held on, and Brother Rabbit lost the use of his feet in the same way. Brother Fox laid low. Then Brother Rabbit shouted out that if the Tar-Baby didn’t turn him loose he would butt her in the side. And then he butted, and his head became stuck. Then Brother Fox sauntered forth, looking just as innocent as one of your mother’s mockingbirds.

Taitz: Amended complaint in Mississippi

I pulled a copy of Orly Taitz’s Amended Petition from her web site in the case of Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi and the Mississippi Secretary of State. It’s dated April 12 and doesn’t yet appear on the court docket.

First, a little background. Both the Democratic Party of Mississippi and the Secretary of State have filed motions to dismiss. The Court has not ruled on these motions, but both defendants filed answers to the original petition the day after the April 12 submission by Taitz (perhaps intentionally).

When Taitz filed the Amended Petition, all she had to go on was the Motions to Dismiss from the Secretary of State and the Democratic Party. It might be instructive to see if and how the Amended Petition attempts to address points raised in the Motions to Dismiss. The Mississippi Secretary of State and the Democratic Party of Mississippi raised several grounds for dismissal, one of which was that Taitz lacks standing to bring the suit because she is not a Mississippi voter, and therefore has no direct interest in a Mississippi election. In response Taitz has added a Mississippi voter, Brian Fedorka, as a Plaintiff. Even if she were a voter, her grievance would be generalized and she would still lack standing. In order to address the general issue of standing, Taitz has introduced three presidential candidates as plaintiffs: Leah Lax, Tim MacLaren and Laurie Roth.

Continue Reading →

Birther appeals dismissed in Georgia

In an order today, the Judge Cynthia D. Wright of the Fulton County Superior Court dismissed appeals by all Petitioners (Farrar, Lax, Judy, Roth, Swensson, Powell, and Welden) in a series of ballot challenges raised against Barack Obama.

The court decided that under the U. S. Constitution and under Georgia Law, the Secretary of State may not interfere in the internal decision making of a political party, in this case the Democratic Presidential Preference Primary. Earlier the court had denied admission pro hac vice to Orly Taitz.

Read the order:

Continue Reading →