Main Menu

Tag Archives | RICO

The People vs. Barack Obama

That’s the title of an yet unreleased book by Ben Shapiro. An excerpt from the book concludes:

RICO provides that any person who is part of an organization that commits any two on a list of crimes can be prosecuted for racketeering, fined up to $25,000, and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison per count. Those charges include murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene material, dealing in drugs, bribery, counterfeiting, embezzlement, …

A private individual bring a civil RICO action would have a title like, “Ben Shapiro vs. Barack Obama,” not “the People.” The idea of getting the president through a civil RICO action is not new. The most visible of those who tried it is Orly Taitz, whose case languishes in Mississippi federal court.

The problem with invoking the civil RICO statute is that in a civil RICO action, the one bringing the suit must be individually harmed by the criminal enterprise. A RICO lawsuit must pass the same hurdle as any federal lawsuit in proving individualized and specific harm, not a general grievance common to everyone.

So while the book may sell some copies, and may spur a host of crank lawsuits, I don’t think it will succeed in removing the President (something a court can’t do in the first place).

Read more:

Movement in Mississippi?

There is a tiny docket entry with huge significance in the Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi case, dated January 8:

Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 1/22/2014 10:00 AM before District Judge Henry T. Wingate (TRS)

Woo Hoo! I am being told that the purpose of this hearing is for Judge Wingate to issue rulings on the outstanding motions in the case, following up his order from last July:

TEXT ONLY ORDER: The court did not speak to Mr. Begley, nor seek to learn the case authority offered. Defense may submit this additional authority by the end of the day (5 p.m.) on Friday, July 19, 2013. Should plaintiffs wish to respond, they may do so by the end of the day (5 p.m.) on Tuesday, July 23, 2013. The parties are not to submit narratives nor lengthy explanations regarding any submissions; the court seeks only the case cites, and a one or two sentence explanation of the parties purpose in submitting the authority. Submissions may be made by email to the chambers email address. The court anticipates issuing written opinions on the outstanding motions before the court within several days after the submission of any additional authority. Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 7/18/2013 (tn) (Entered: 07/18/2013)

The lawsuit has grown since its original filing in Mississippi state court, through the addition of a Civil RICO action. While I talk about Orly Taitz as the Plaintiff, there are four others: Brian Fedorka, Leah Lax (who claims she never consented to be a party), Tom MacLeran and Laurie Roth. On the defense side we have four groups of defendants: the Mississippi Secretary of State represented by the state attorney general, the Mississippi Democratic Party joined by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi represented by Sam Begley and Scott Tepper, the Hawaii defendants Loretta Fuddy and Alvin Onaka represented by Mississippi attorney Walter Dukes, and the federal defendant Michael Astrue who has not appeared due to lack of service.

Here is a summary of the major motions in the case:

ECF Party Motion Status
8 MS Secretary of State Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings  
11 Taitz Dismiss and sanction for removal  
15 MS Democrats Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings  
20 Taitz Motion to remand to state court  
40 Taitz Motion to expedite  
57 Hawaii Defendants Motion to Dismiss  
76 Lax Motion to remove Lax from the suit  
85, 87 Taitz Motion for default judgment against Astrue Denied
93 Taitz Motion to Reconsider default judgment Denied

 

A hearing was held on September 24, 2012 on the motions: 8, 11, 15, 20, and 40. Another telephone conference was held on November 15 on motions 15 and 57. Since those hearings, defendant Loretta Fuddy died.

So next Wednesday, January 22, at 10 AM (CST) is the big news for next week. Of course the case is not over as, no doubt, new motions will be filed.

Read more:

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.

Orly’s lost luggage

Today is an important day for Orly Taitz in Mississippi. The hearing on motions to dismiss  and for judgment on the pleadings from all of the plaintiffs, the Mississippi Democratic Party, the Secretary of State of Mississippi, the Hawaii Defendants, President Obama et al. is scheduled for 1 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-6).

The case hasn’t gone well for her so far. I can only assume that Taitz filed suit in Mississippi because she thought the political climate there would be more amenable to attacks against a black President. Wrong! Like most birthers, Taitz believes that her prior losses were due to drawing the wrong judge, not because of lack of merit in her cases. Not only did this case, Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi, become largely moot because of her own actions, she encountered unexpected strength in the opposition, from attorneys Begley and Tepper, and she drew a very competent federal judge, Wingate. Wingate ruled against her pro hac vice admission to practice in Mississippi. Orly’s other Plaintiff’s have not held up their side of the suit. Tepper seems motivated to do more than just get this settled in the defendants’ favor, but also to recover costs, and as to Taitz’ one-woman legal jihad against the President, shut that whole thing down.

TAITZ LOSES SUIT(case)

image

So today is the big day when 9 months of labor come to a head—and Orly has lost her luggage. Do people still check luggage for an overnighter? Apparently Orly does. Airlines warn you not to put anything critical in checked luggage, things you cannot do without, like medications, legal papers and your black lawyer dress. Orly says she will have to appear in Court in jeans and without her papers.

Sources indicate that there will be extensive Obot reporting from Mississippi and we’ll look forward to that, I hope later today. This lost luggage will have a significant impact on one of the most important aspects of the hearing, the fashion report.  I hope everybody brought coats; it’s 34 degrees in Jackson this morning.

Information:

Following is an opposition motion to the dismissal filed by Taitz on Nov. 14.

Continue Reading →

Scanning Orly

Photo of Orly Tatz looking cluelessOrly Taitz, if she’s still going to try to be a lawyer, really ought to invest a few dollars and get herself a decent scanner. Her scans are barely readable, and sometimes not readable at all. An example is the cover pages she posted to her latest filings in Mississippi, one embedded along with clear parts at the end of this article.

It seems to me that there’s not a chance that Judge Wingate will fail to dismiss defendants Onaka and Fuddy at or soon after the hearing this Friday in Jackson. Their brief was masterfully written with iron-clad argument. A Mississippi federal court has no jurisdiction over defendants in Hawaii who have no presence or interests in Mississippi—no jurisdiction, no case. Nevertheless Taitz has filed an opposition brief to the motion to dismiss the Hawaii Defendants. Taitz inexplicably writes:

They availed themselves to the jurisdiction of the state1 of MS.

Taitz rants (“argues” is too kind a word) that by verifying Obama’s birth in Hawaii, they placed themselves under Mississippi jurisdiction.

Taitz also rejects the argument of the Hawaii defendants that appearing in Mississippi would be burdensome to them, saying “Defendants availed themselves to the jurisdiction of this court by certifying a forgery…” So that gets them free airline tickets or something? No, but Orly offers to fly to Hawaii to take depositions. The problem here, and in a later section about nationwide process of service, ignores the fact that Orly isn’t just trying to depose the Hawaii Defendants, she is suing them!

In response to the Hawaii Defendants statement that they have no agents in Mississippi, Taitz says the the Mississippi Democratic Party and Barack Obama are their agents in Mississippi. I won’t even try to explain how she gets there.

I was a little confused by what Orly meant when she said “There is no argument that RICO extends to Defendants Democrat Party of Mississippi and Secretary of State of Mississippi.” There is no argument on which side? Orly argues BOTH sides as to the Secretary of State. In her RICO statement  (page 1) filed in this case Orly says:

Secretary of State and Democratic Party of Ms took part in RICO enterprise by covering up Obama’s forged IDs and all evidence provided to them by Plaintiffs in 2008 in Thomas v Hosemann and in 2012 by Taitz.

But earlier when she was objecting to the Secretary of State removing the case to federal court because of the RICO action, she wrote in a Letter to the Court (page 2):

Federal causes of action, namely RICO, cited by the Defendant [Secretary of State] in his notice of removal, does not even relate to this particular defendant and he has no standing to even raise this as a reason for removal. First Amended complaint clearly states2 that RICO cause of action does not relate to the Secretary of State.

It may not be apparent to the reader that at this point I have already spent over an hour on this article. It’s not that I have written all that much, but I had, for example, to find that letter to the court I just cited, and that took a while to find which document had what I needed. I had to review the First amended complaint, and at this point I have only looked at only about 11% of Orly’s total brief, and I haven’t done any research as to why a couple of cases Orly cited so far are distinguished from the present case. If I don’t want to comment on something, I just skip it. If the attorney for the Hawaii Defendants actually answers this thing point by point it will literally take days, and this money is coming (I think) of the pockets of Drs. Onaka and Fuddy, who as civil servants don’t make huge salaries. They deserve these costs reimbursed to them by Taitz because Taitz’ bringing them into this case is at best frivolous and at worse malicious.

You can read all 45 pages of Taitz’s brief below if you like. Taitz also moved for an emergency evidentiary hearing (41 more pages).

Continue Reading →

To bifurcate, or not to bifurcate, that is the question

Sorry, it’s Taitz again

If you’ve been following the history of the lawsuit of Taitz v. Mississippi Democrat Party, you know that it’s been a complicated process. Originally filed in Mississippi State Court on Valentine’s day this year, the case has had many twists and turns. After filing the case, Taitz demanded a new judge and then filed an amended complaint, adding defendants, and a Civil RICO (racketeering) action. Defendant Mississippi Secretary of State removed the case to federal court and Taitz has been fighting to return it to state court (judge shopping, I guess). Attorney Scott Tepper, who exhibits an almost encyclopedic knowledge of birther arcana, is co-counsel in Mississippi for the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee (MDEC). Taitz filed Bar complaints against Tepper in both California and Mississippi, both tossed out. Taitz demanded that every member of the MDEC be warned that they were liable for criminal prosecution if they continued to help Obama stay on the ballot.

Taitz’ attempt to return the case to state court failed, but now she’s attempting to divide the case (which she previously glued together) into two parts, one that could be heard in state court, with the RICO complaint left in federal court. This bifurcation multiplies the complexity of the thing and the MDEC has opposed this latest whoop-de-do by Taitz. The MDEC motion filed today, and joined by the Secretary of State,  appears at the end of the article.

Rather than simply trying to get the case out of court as fast as possible, the MDEC is also using language that builds on an already-existing foundation for a motion for sanctions against Taitz under 28 U.S.C. §19271. Unlike sanctions under federal Rule 11, §1927 specifically targets attorneys and because misconduct under §1927 requires bad faith on the part of the attorney, it is appropriate for warnings to be made now in order to ward off, or provide grounds for sanctions later, should Taitz continue to multiply the proceedings.

If Taitz had stuck with her original complaint, the case would have remained in state court, and almost certainly she would have had a judgment by now. As it is, this case will certainly drag on past the Election if it is not simply dismissed before then.

One interesting footnote in the MDEC filing is a reference to a Mississippi Medicaid regulation that says:

Most United States citizens are natural-born citizens, meaning they were born in the United States or were born to United States citizens overseas.

If you enjoy hearing Taitz chewed up and spit out, this filing is for you:

Continue Reading →

333333 44444
5555555
6666666