Main Menu

Tag Archives | scott tepper

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.

Mississippi fritz: Documents and copies

Maybe I’m getting old, but the number of loose cannons on the deck of the SS Birther has created such pandemonium that I’m getting a little confused as to who is saying what. I know that some of the Orly Taitz faction has zeroed in on documents filed by attorneys for the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee, in the Taitz case. Orly Taitz herself has no technical skills to probe documents, so whatever she says is coming from elsewhere. Here’s what she wrote, though:

I asked [Kevin Davidson] about the new document, which was produced by Obama’s attorneys Tepper and Begley, which was sent to Judge Wingate. In the new version forgers cleaned up several signs of forgery, the original layers were flattened and the white halo was cleaned up.

Thanks to commenters for the following: This nonsense might have originated with one Henry Blake, whose letter appears, attached to Strunk’s appeal (starting on Page 122). Orly Taitz also filed an affidavit from Blake in her Mississippi case.

So, let me explain what she means and lay it out chronologically:

Orly Taitz filed a copy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate with the Court in Mississippi. She printed out the White House PDF and then scanned it, and in the process messed it up so badly that it was largely unreadable. No one accused Taitz with faking the document. Some thought she should have gotten one of her supporters who knows a thing or two about scanners to get her some decent equipment.

Attorneys for the Democrats included a readable copy of the birth certificate, saying to the Court, here is a readable copy of what Taitz submitted. The document provided to the court is the White House PDF with a cover page added. It has the same layers as the White House PFD and it has halos. It has the Court Docket header added, but otherwise it’s the same. I checked this myself and you can too. Here’s a detail from it showing the court docket header:


Here is a detail from the Court docket copy of the PDF, showing the characteristic missing “R” from one of the layers I extracted using Adobe Acrobat 9:


Later, after Taitz accused the Defendants’ counsel of submitting a fake document to the court, attorney Scott Tepper asked for and received a verification from the State of Hawaii, and that was submitted to the court. Tepper submitted to the Court a copy of his correspondence to the State of Hawaii. Look at this detail from page 4:


You can see clearly that the copy of the birth certificate that Tepper sent Hawaii was not the White House PDF, but rather a copy from the Court docket, since the docket header (Document 15-1) from his original submission is shown on the page. Obviously Tepper had to print out the Court docket entry in order to mail it to the State of Hawaii, and then he re-scanned the package along with his cover letter. It is beyond comprehension how the birthers could spin a tale of Tepper altering the White House PDF and not see what is pointed to by the big red arrow in the illustration above, showing clear and unequivocally that it is not the White House PDF, but the Court Docket entry that was printed and scanned.

Tepper’s scanner didn’t do the same compression song and dance that the White House equipment did, and so there are distinct differences. Also, remember that is a copy of a copy. It should be obvious from the court docket headers exactly where the documents came from and it is obvious that no “new” copy of the birth certificate has appeared anywhere. Despite Taitz’ wild claims, there was no flim-flam directed at confusing the Court. This is just a copy of a copy.

Both Tepper and Taitz printed copies of an Obama birth certificate and scanned them for a court filing. Both removed certain PDF document structure (layers) in the process. Nobody claims Orly faked the document, but she makes a federal case (literally) of Tepper doing exactly the same thing.

Brainiac attacks birther lawsuits

Shrunken Kandor

It would a be long and twisted road trying to turn that title into the topic of this article. Here’s the short version. Brainiac is a super villain of the Superman comic books, and one of the things he did was to shrink the city of Kandor from Superman’s home planet of Krypton and put it in a bottle. Honesty and forthrightness is called by a similar-sounding name, “candor,” and it seems that candor in birther legal filings has been shrunk, as by the comic book villain’s ray, to the point of vanishing.

Size is relative, and the shrunken city of Kandor looked large under a microscope. In order to appreciate the actual size of birther candor, we need to compare it to normal-sized candor, and for that purpose I present this November 20 letter from Scott Tepper to the Court in Mississippi in the case of Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi. Mr. Tepper said something in court on November 16 that wasn’t 100% accurate, and he sent a letter to the judge correcting it.

MS 2012-11-20 – TvDPM – Tepper Letter to Court Re November 16 2012 Hearing

We might compare that with any of the invisible examples of candor from the birther attorneys. A neat parallel is the Supplemental brief from Orly Taitz to the same court last week. She states that Defendants Onaka and Fuddy are being sued in their individual capacity, but Taitz, all candor lacking, fails to mention that she served the Hawaii Attorney General with her complaint against them.

Something else, that I would call a “lack of candor", is trying to slip in inadmissible items disguised as something else. The “something else” is Taitz’ proof of service of the Hawaii Defendants requested by the court. In addition to documentation of attempts to serve the Defendants, Orly slips in affidavits by Paul Irey and Mike Zullo, which are described by Defendants:

Immaterial, impertinent, contain scandalous material, contain hearsay, and, as such, are wholly inadmissible.

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.



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.


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

Continue Reading →

Going after Orly

Two significant events in Orlyworld occurred in the last few days following her shut-out loss in Indiana. The first was a loss in Orange County California Superior Court on November 1 in which she attempted to bully Occidental College into providing copies of the college records of President Obama. She lost that battle and it cost her $4,000 in sanctions to compensate Occidental College for legal fees. I wrote about this story based on the legal filings in the case. Now you can hear the story from the perspective of Occidental attorney Jay Ritt in a fascinating interview in the first hour of Reality Check Radio, which you may listen to through the player at the end of this article or at Blog Talk Radio. Mr. Ritt emphasized that while Barack Obama is the college’s most famous student, they would have mounted the same vigorous defense of the privacy of any freshman on campus today.

Taitz essentially told the court that none of the court rules and statutory legal procedures apply to her pursuit of Barack Obama, because he is a terrorist.

The second major event was a telephonic conference between Taitz and lawyers for the The Hawaii  defendants, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee and Obama for America. There is an account of that conference compiled from attorneys’ notes at the Oh, For Goodness Sake blog that makes for very entertaining reading. The recap shows Taitz being caught time after time not being honest with the court. Attorney Scott Tepper who participated in that conference call representing President Obama, OFA, Nancy Pelosi and the Mississippi Democratic Party, was the guest for the second half of the Reality Check Radio program. A hearing for all parties in the Mississippi case to argue the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will be heard November 16 at 1 PM. This may be the place to be for folks interested in Orly Taitz.

Listening to tonight’s RC Radio discussion, and having watched Orly Taitz in person, I come away with two distinct impressions of Taitz and it is regrettable that no court recording was done in either case this past week to help me sort them out.


First, it is not clear whether Orly has ever even served a defendant properly except perhaps in the case of Barnett v. Obama where Judge David O. Carter told Taitz to sit down with the US Attorney that was in Court and to get it done. An attorney who can’t even serve a complaint could be described as clueless. They say that in Court, she doesn’t even sit at the right counsel table. It seems that she is lost in Orlyworld’s paranoid waking dream, where she is the hero hacking and slashing the orcs and goblins (opposing attorneys and judges) on a quest to slay the demon king (Obama). There is a total disconnect with how the law actually works and no concept of how inherently nonsensical her conspiracy theories are.

“Legal Terrorist?”

That’s the phrase Scott Tepper used. In the accounts of Orly’s recent conduct, there were signs that Orly is not clueless, but rather intentional in her attempts to verbally bully and threaten judges and opposing counsel into letting her get her way. It succeeded in getting her a trial in Indiana, and getting unqualified witnesses to testify, although the trial was ultimately stricken. It didn’t work in Orange County or in Mississippi this past week.

Clearly attorneys have had enough of Taitz and are going to get serious about trying to shut that whole thing down. Tepper hinted at a “six-figure” sanctions motion in Mississippi and a move by unspecified parties to have Taitz declared a vexatious litigant in California soon.

We all have our visions, Orly of Obama driven from office in disgrace and her ultimate adulation as a national hero. My vision is Orly disbarred from the practice of law, barred from bring suits in California as a vexatious litigant, and subjected to crippling sanctions. Which vision is based in reality? Stay tuned.

Listen to internet radio with RCRadio on Blog Talk Radio

Layered defense

Artists rendering of Federal Courthouse in Jackson MSPresident Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Obama for America are now engaged in the Taitz v Democrat Party of Mississippi lawsuit, answering the “First amended complaint” in a brief this past Monday (October 29) in Jackson, MS. I was just a little surprised to see, although it makes perfect sense, that attorneys Scott Tepper and Sam Begley are representing these new defendants as well as the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee. In addition to denying the allegations in Taitz’ complaint, the President and the other Defendants offered affirmative defenses, layers and layers of them, specifically:

  1. The complaint consists of immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous matter, has been filed for an improper purpose, and should be stricken pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
  2. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction
  3. Failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
  4. Lack of standing, lack of ripeness, mootness and no assertion of justiciable right to relief.
  5. Failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 9(a) and 9(b)
  6. Failure to comply with jurisdictional and procedural requirements of Miss. Code Ann. §§ 23-15-961, 23-15-963 and 23-15-1089.
  7. Some or all claims barred by estoppel, ratification, collateral estoppel, waiver and/or laches.
  8. Plaintiffs have unclean hands 1
  9. Plaintiffs have not been injured within the meaning of the applicable law
  10. Defenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1961
  11. Immunity
  12. Defenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) and 12(b).
  13. Other affirmative defenses

In addition to asking the court to dismiss the case, the Defense is asking for costs, writing:

Defendants further respectfully request that this court assess attorney[‘]s fees against Plaintiffs pursuant to the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act of 1988, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1927, for a wholly frivolous, unreasonable, vexations and malicious complaint.

Read the Answer:

Continue Reading →