Main Menu

Tag Archives | Taitz v. Democratic Party of Mississippi

The extraordinary emergency du jour

Tick, tick, tick—the clock is ticking. Obama will be sworn in for his second term as President  [fergcorp_cdt_single date="20 Jan 2013 12:00:00"]. Orly Taitz is attacking on two fronts, first with a motion for reconsideration of her failure to get an injunction to stop the inauguration in the Grinols case, and a hearing today, January 17 (denied for defective filing).

The second is a petition to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi. Taitz cites Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 21 on “Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition, and Other Extraordinary Writs” as a basis for seeking a “writ of mandamus for the lower court to expedite the default judgment and postjudgment discovery against defendant commissioner of Social Security Michael Astrue.” My article, “Running out of snappy Mississippi titles” discusses the merits of this claim of default, and why even if Astrue were in default, she won’t get Obama’s Social Security records.

Taitz tallies 49 pages in this one, mostly exhibits including her usual gang of unqualified experts, plus copies of the federal rules. I think one sentence in her brief pinpoints the problem in her petition for emergency relief:

The issue of Obama using a Social Security number, which was never assigned to him has to be heard before the swearing in ceremony.

Why? What does a social-security number have to do with being President of the United States?

Here’s a bit of humor:

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

There are no interested persons.

I don’t know if this is correct under the 5th Circuit’s Rule 28.2.1, but it’s still funny.

As of this morning at 9:47 AM Eastern time, no action on the petition appeared on the 5th Circuit Court docket.

MS ECF 92-1 2013-01-11 – Emergency Petition for Mandamus to Expedite Ruling to Fifth Circuit by Jack Ryan

Daily Taitz

Only one Orly Taitz article allowed today

So on her web site Orly writes an article [link to Taitz web site] appealing to her readers, rather than spending 30 seconds on Google (keywords: zullo, japanese, mafia), to find the interview where Mike Zullo said that the Japanese Mafia was selling fake birth registrations in Hawaii in the 1960’s. Here’s my helpful reply, still in moderation:

Zullo made those comments on the Tea Party Power Hour program. There’s a video of it on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiTFfrm5jvY

The segment on the “Japanese registrations” appears about 7 minutes in.

I personally do not believe the story.

Of course we know that Obama was born in a hospital, and couldn’t have been registered by his granny. But birthers will be birthers.

In other Taitz news, documents are filtering in related to the case of Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi. Apparently that legislative candidate in Hawaii, Larry Fenton, that Orly is so fond of may not actually know how serve summons any better than Orly does, or so alleges the “Motion to Dismiss” [and Memorandum] from the Hawaii Defendants (Alvin Onaka and Loretta Fuddy). Fenton apparently left his summons with  Audrey Gibo, a Department of Health secretary who was authorized to answer the phone, but not to receive service on behalf of Onaka and Fuddy. The case also must be dismissed as to those defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction (they don’t live or have business interests in Mississippi). Mississippi attorney Walter W. Dukes, who is representing the Hawaii Defendants,  noted that it took 172 days for Orly to even half serve them (federal rules require service within 120 days of filing a complaint). Reviewing the Court’s options: they can either dismiss the case, dismiss it, or order it dismissed.

Speaking of doing things late, Orly announced [draft on Taitz web site] that the David Farrar Primary Election objection in Georgia is being renewed for the General Election, almost two weeks after early voting has already started in Georgia. Taitz writes:

Inexplicably this court [Administrative Law Court in the original Farrar case] found that the evidence brought forward by 7 experts and competent witnesses at trial was “not convincing enough” and allowed Obama to stay on the ballot.

I would suggest that Taitz read the decision of Judge Malihi for a full explanation.

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 →

Taitz simplified

I wrote before that Orly Taitz had filed too many cases to prosecute all by herself. Perhaps she’s realized that, or has some other less-rational motive, in her latest move in Mississippi.

Taitz is asking federal judge Henry T. Wingate as to the possibility of consolidating her case in Mississippi, Taitz v. Democratic Party of Mississippi, with her case in California, Judd et al v. Obama et al. As Taitz says (admits?) in her letter to the judge, the cases are pretty much the same thing. Taitz argues “judicial economy.” The first option she presents is for Judge Wingate to grant her pro hac vice (permission to represent defendants in Mississippi, where she is not licensed to practice law) and transfer the California case to Mississippi, or alternately transfer the case to California. There’s a down side to each: In Mississippi she will have to file a complex Federal RICO questionnaire. In California she will have to face Judge Carter who has already ruled against her in another similar case. To quote Mr. Bryant:

ItsAPickle

I’m not a lawyer, and so I’m not really supposed to understand whether any of this makes legal sense under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (my citation). If I am patient, some nice federal judge will explain it to me and Orly Taitz. As a layman I say fewer cases would seem better; however, it’s abundantly clear that whatever Taitz’ real intentions, the real-world result will be delay far past the November elections that are just a month away, since the courts now have to process and hold hearings on the transfer motion. Taitz’ letter to Wingate might be just a delaying tactic to postpone filing the RICO questionnaire, since Wingate is not the one who decides who will hear the consolidated case in the first place, and he can’t rule on pro hac vice for Taitz before there is a case and motions made and answered. One might suppose that the Defendant Mississippi Secretary of State would object to the case being consolidated and tried in California. Likewise the California defendants might object to having to defend in Mississippi. Certainly her moving, removing and transferring is causing massive extra work for defendants.

Continue Reading →

Time management

I think Orly Taitz needs to work on time management. I read the transcript of her court appearance in Mississippi last week, and she didn’t seem prepared. She either didn’t read or didn’t pay enough attention to remember the cases cited against her by the Secretary of State and and the Mississippi Democratic Party. It was rather embarrassing as the judge repeatedly asked her about things with which she should have been familiar only to hear her say, “I don’t recall.” She asked the court for 3 weeks to serve the new defendants in the case and three weeks to respond to Defense motions (to be served  concurrently), thereby extending the time that the case could be heard until after the election.

Now we see that Taitz has done the same thing in Kansas, reports the Topeka Capital Journal. Again she has asked for 21 days to respond to Defense motions, and with 14 days allowed for the Defendants to respond, any court action is again past the election.

Add to those two, the massive suit in California with 30 defendants (she thinks it’s a problem answering motions from just 2 defendants!) Judd v. Obama plus that PPACA challenge in Texas, Taitz v. Sebelius. I don’t know how many more.

Taitz seems to measure success by how many lawsuits she has filed, not how many she has won. As we say in the United States, she has bitten off more than she can chew. Maybe she should hire a lawyer.

333333 44444
5555555
6666666