Main Menu

Tag Archives | Taitz v Democrat Party of Mississippi

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.

Taitz multiplies delays in Mississippi

On the eve of a decision by federal Judge Wingate in Mississippi, Orly Taitz filed something that delayed the decision in the long-running Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi case, including punking comments from her own web site. Now she’s filed even more “stuff” with a motion today for leave to file new facts and opinions (h/t to NBC).

Her motion is accompanied by one item we pretty much expected, the Dissenting Opinion by Chief Justice Moore from the Alabama Supreme Court decision in the case of McInnish v. Chapman. She thinks this minority opinion is something the Court should look at. While on the surface this might seem to be a tiny help to Taitz since Judge Moore opined that the presidential eligibility questions do not become moot after the election because the same issues are likely to repeat, and his view that in Alabama the Secretary of State has an obligation under law to investigate questionable candidates, it actually undermines her position because Judge Moore further states that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear eligibility cases, citing Hutchinson v. Miller:

Had the framers wished the federal judiciary to umpire election contexts, they could have so provided. Instead, they reposed primary trust in popular representatives and in political correctives.

The second item is one less familiar, the oral argument in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Lindsay v. Bowen case. In this case California Secretary of State Bowen denied a 2012 ballot position to Peace and Freedom Party presidential candidate Peta Lindsay because she was under age. Bowen argues that she has the authority to do this. Taitz argues that in Mississippi, the Secretary of State must investigate candidates and exclude ineligible ones.

While neither of these two items is precedential, I can understand why someone grasping at straws might submit them; however, what took me totally by surprise was the appearance of

The Orly Taitz Super PAC

“No one expects the Orly Taitz Super PAC!”

Orly Taitz on Los Angeles

Continue Reading →