Main Menu

Tag Archives | Taitz v Democrat Party of Mississippi

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.

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:

Taitz changing emphasis?

The once queen of the “birthers” seems to be emphasizing other issues on her web site of late. Of the 15 articles comprising the home page of, none of them are about President Obama’s eligibility. Indeed, one has to go back to the 3rd page to find something birther-related, the Sibley/Vogt/Fuddy bribery faux story.

Taitz seems more oriented towards her run for California Attorney General, anti-Muslim bigotry, and advocating tolerance of racism. Oh, and Benghazi!

On April 7, there was this typical Taitz article:

Update: no decision yet in outstanding 5 cases filed by Attorney Orly Taitz in relation to Obama’s use of a stolen CT SSN and bogus IDs. Decisions are expected any day now.

On the Taitz lawsuit front as you may recall, Taitz moved in Mississippi asking the Court for leave to file new evidence and authority. This was opposed by defendant Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee, joined by other defendants. Taitz would have had her decision in Mississippi if she hadn’t muddied the waters filing more stuff the day before the decision was to have been handed down.

Orly Taitz Super PAC responds

I just saw this in the Twitter feed.

Readers may recall that Orly Taitz in her most recent two filings in Mississippi raised the issue of the Orly Taitz Super PAC, alleging that it was stealing money from her campaign. Now the Orly Taitz Super PAC has responded with an article sympathetic to Taitz, and this pledge:

We give our solemn assurance that every penny raised by the Orly Taitz Super PAC is used to promote Orly Taitz’ candidacy for Attorney General.


This article has been updated to show the spiffy new graphic for the Orly Taitz Super PAC. According to the Volunteer page, it was donated by someone with the initials PA.

Mississippi Democrats attempt to dam flooding Taitz

Rather than respond to Defense opposition to her previous motion to file new information, Taitz did something called a “First amended motion for leave of court to file new facts and opinions.” Attorneys for the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee respond that they can’t find anything in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that let her do that, but just to be safe, they are replying to it anyway. Read the MDEC reply.

Articles like this are what I call a “wrapper” because I assume that all the reader really wants to do is read the reply and go from there. The article just puts a title and some introductory text around the actual document.

The document itself is pretty much a reprise of their motion in opposition to Taitz’ previous attempt to file more stuff.

My favorite quote:

While these materials purport to show that attorney Taitz is being victimized by someone, they appear to be little more than pranks from people who have read her website.

Read more:

Taitz multiplies proceedings and further delays a decision in Mississippi

Once again, Orly Taitz throws a spanner in the works in Mississippi with a new motion for leave to file 7 more irrelevant exhibits in Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi, bringing the docket to 109 entries in what should have been a straightforward case. Some of this she tried to file before.

I have been cultivating bemusement, and this latest filing had going a long way towards that goal. After citing the Orly Taitz Super PAC web site (which may be a satire) and an email alleging that someone was misdirected to a fake Orly Taitz foundation address (the email could be a hoax too), Taitz says:

Only upon denying outstanding motions to dismiss and granting an order allowing discovery can Taitz ascertain the extent of the alleged financial damage to her due to the RICO conspiracy, which is the subject of this legal action.

How could a court have such jurisdiction when Taitz doesn’t even know whether she has been financially harmed? Further, Taitz has not alleged that any party to her case was responsible for the “alleged financial damage.” Does she think the Mississippi Secretary of State, the Democratic Party of Mississippi or the State of Hawaii is behind the Orly Taitz Super PAC? I think not.

The second a/bemusing item involves an allegedly fake offer of financial support from a Texas Oil and Gas lobbyist, and a trip on a private plane to Texas. Taitz thinks it’s a murder plot to kill her just like Fuddy!

Orly’s fight against people who make fun or her has no place in a Mississippi courtroom.

  • First amended motion for leave of court to file new facts and opinions
  • Exhibit 1 – Orly Taitz Super PAC web page screen print (newer version) and emails about fake Protect Our Freedoms Foundation
  • Exhibit 2 – Transcript of  Oral Argument in 9th Circuit in Lindsey (sic) v. Bowen.
  • Exhibit 3 – Alabama Supreme Court opinions in McInnish case
  • Exhibit 4 – NTSB letter refusing FOIA for information about ongoing investigation
  • Exhibit 5 – Request for copy of Fuddy autopsy from Maui Police and an anonymous email saying the sender has information about Google scrubbing her articles
  • Exhibit 6 – More emails from fictitious Dan Burke about Google scrubbing Taitz articles.
  • Exhibit 7 – Email exchange that appears to be an offer of financial support for Taitz’ AG race in exchange for her support of a Monterey Shale project. The letter is a hoot. Has Orly invented a new crime “Criminal impersonation of a registered lobbyist”?

It looks like Orly has been punked so many times, that she’s starting to check things out. I just wish she had done this with all her Obama conspiracy nonsense.

This motion will require responses from the three other legal teams on the Plaintiffs’ side. More pointless paperwork.