Main Menu

Tag Archives | Leah Lax

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.

Judd v. Obama Appellant brief filed

Something actually happened to break the birther doldrums. Orly Taitz has filed the Appellant’s Opening Brief in the case of Judd et al. v. Obama et al. Lots of familiar names in the et al. part, including Alvin Onaka, and Debra Bowen1. Orly Taitz is not only the attorney but also an appellant.

This is the crazy case that Orly Taitz tried to remove from state to federal court, even though plaintiffs can’t do that. It was a real mess and judge David Carter threw it out. The Appellants want the case reinstated and they want a different judge.

Taitz sums up her objections by saying:

The status of the U.S. Judiciary today is reminiscent of the judiciary in the Communist Soviet Union or NAZI Germany. Germany in 1932-1945 had a Constitution, parliament, codes, thousands of highly educated judges, however not one single judge in Germany found actions of Adolf Hitler to be in any way illegal or unconstitutional. In years of Communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union and Communist China not one single judge found actions of Stalin or Mao to be illegal or unconstitutional. Actions of the U.S. Judiciary during the Obama regime are very similar: judges have in front of them all the evidence of the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by a criminal who does not have one single valid ID, using crude forgeries and the judges are simply using one bogus excuse after another to cover up flagrant elections fraud and forgery. Actions by judges are so egregious that they amount to criminal complicity and possibly treason.

Treason? :roll:

Taitz, always trendy, threw in the NSA surveillance/Prism story. Taitz speculates that judges won’t touch Obama because he’s blackmailing them with information gained in the NSA data gathering.

In days gone by, I would have spent more time on this filing, but I really don’t care any more. Read it if you want; it’s crap.

1For a complete list of the defendants in the original case, see the note at the end of my article: “Orly’s California case moving.”

Tag team: Taitz + Apuzzo

imageA most curious article title [Link to Taitz site] appeared on the Orly Taitz blog a few days back. It said: “Update: I talked to attorney Mario Apuzzo, he stated, he will assist as much as he can.” I could hardly let that pass without comment.

I must admit that the first thought that came to mind was “poor Mario.” Partnerships with Taitz tend to go badly because she exhibits no respect for the other party and has no concept of confidentiality (like posting on the Internet that she had talked to Apuzzo). Taitz and Berg are involved in a messy lawsuit, former client Connie Rhodes said she was going to file a bar complaint against Taitz because Taitz filed actions on behalf of Rhodes without authorization, a major feud erupted between her and her co-counsel Gary Kreep, and now Taitz is petitioning the court to issue sanctions against her co-plaintiff Leah Lax in Mississippi. Apuzzo, on the other hand, seems arrogant and dismissive of others. There would seem to me to be a distinct personality conflict.

Apuzzo, for his part, has largely ignored Taitz on his blog except to note once that an article on her site is something that he actually wrote. On the other hand Taitz did mention Apuzzo in a substantive way, criticizing him [Link to Taitz web site] for that silly article saying that Obama was really Bari Shabazz and the son of Malcolm X.

Usually in a collaboration, one plays upon the strengths of the other. In this case we have one attorney whose evidence (copied from the Internet) has been rejected by multiple courts and another whose legal theories have been labeled as “without merit”  by others. I don’t see that as a combination for success. Any bets as to how long it will take Taitz to add Apuzzo to her RICO complaint?

Mississippi boiling

The media is catching up with the fact that Orly’s California case was dismissed after she had to pay costs of $4,000 to Occidental College for that bum subpoena. OC Weekly, which has some of the best Taitz local coverage reported the money quote from Judge Marginis to Taitz: “You should know that evidence is not stuff printed from the Internet.” (We’ll see below that Taitz did not grasp this concept since it undermines her entire legal strategy.) The following comment was made on that article:

DaxDax: How this woman hasn’t gotten serious sanctions and some disciplinary action via the Ca State Bar is beyond me.

The thing that’s more likely to get serious sanctions and a Bar disciplinary action isn’t what happened in California, but what is unfolding in Mississippi, as Taitz continues to amaze with a new filing that discloses email exchanges between her and Leah Lax, compounding the case even further.

First, a reminder of where the case stands. The Hawaii Defendants have moved to be dismissed from the case on several grounds. The Democratic Defendants have move for judgment on the pleadings. A hearing was held last month on those motions.

Since the hearing a small flurry of documents have been filed. Taitz filed her opposition to the dismissal and judgment in a “Supplemental response” pancakes and all. Taitz subsequently filed an Amended supplemental response that I haven’t yet read.

The Mississippi Attorney General on behalf of the Secretary of State has filed a “Supplemental brief” in response to Taitz’ Supplemental response, calling it a bunch of hooey (my words). It’s not groundbreaking, but it does catalog Taitz’ ineptitude and lack of candor. The Hawaii defendants have filed a “Supplemental brief” too. And there are briefs from the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee and from the National Democratic defendants: Obama, Pelosi and Obama for America.

All of this filing and briefing and supplementing is work for the attorneys, and they have to be paid. If the judge can be convinced that Taitz is vexatiously or unnecessarily making the case more complicated, she can be asked to pay those attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and that could turn out to be a staggering amount.

Laurie Roth and Leah Lax, both putative plaintiffs in the case have written letters to the Court asking that they be excused, and that provides the second threat to Taitz. Lax claims that Taitz drug her into the case without her intention and misrepresented those intentions, and that she faked her signature on the complaint. Now Taitz in retaliation has written a 58-page response to Lax that includes dumps of emails between the two of them, made barely legible by Orly’s crappy scanner. It even contains 14 pages of a hexadecimal encoded PDF file, purportedly a signature page signed by Lax. Taitz also discloses the “Confidential settlement” offer from the Democratic Defendants to Taitz.

In the “Response” Taitz denies that she “pasted” Lax’s signature on the “First amended complaint.” The signature page from Lax was filed with the court, but I didn’t know this because the Jack Ryan copy of it is labeled “Brian Fedorka” (which is the line where she signed it). Taitz says that she shouldn’t be sanctioned—Lax should!

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.