Main Menu

Tag Archives | Taitz v Sebelius

What, a new eligibility lawsuit appeal?

Claiming a specific injury because of an ineligible president, Christopher John Rudy is suing the government for $90, a fee he had to pay as the result of a law signed by Barack Obama, whom Rudy alleges is not really the president. Of course, this case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

The original case (1:2013cv00278) was filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court in March of 2013. The order dismissing the case agreed with the Patent Office’s contention that the courts lacked jurisdiction to decide presidential eligibility because it was a political question. A political question is defined by guidelines set down by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962), existing when any of the following holds:

  1. textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;
  2. a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue;
  3. the impossibility of resolving the issue without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;
  4. the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution of the issue without expressing a lack of respect due to the coordinate branches of government;
  5. an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or
  6. the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

Defendants cited to three of the criteria (1, 5 and 6) and said: “numerous articles and amendments of the U. S. Constitution, when viewed together, make clear that the issue of the President’s qualifications and his removal from office are textually committed to the legislative branch and not the judicial branch.”

The decision was appealed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (case number 14-1056), and the lower court ruling was affirmed without comment on April 11, 2014.

What makes this latter-day case a little more interesting is the submission of an amicus brief by the United States Justice Foundation (Gary Kreep’s old outfit). This time the USJF attorney is William J. Olson. The USJF is a non-profit, right-wing nut job public interest organization. The USJF brief claims that up until now, “no one has questioned the validity of a law signed by the president.” That is, of course, is factually wrong. Orly Taitz did that in Taitz v. Sebelius.  Very sloppy work, Mr. Olson. Our old buddy Herb Titus makes an appearance on the docket also, I presume with the amicus brief.

The Supreme Court appeal was docketed July 10, and assigned case number 14-36. Here is the USJF brief, and it is quoted from in the WorldNetDaily article referenced below.


The Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari on October 6, 2014.

Read more:

Taitz v. Sebelius dismissed


Not a leg to stand on

Orly lost another lawsuit, Taitz v. Sebelius, dismissed for lack of standing. Federal district judge R. Barklay Surrick in Pennsylvania provided us with an excellent education in the problems with birther lawsuits in his scholarly ruling in Berg v Obama et al and we see the same legal principles at play four years later in the November 20 ruling by federal district judge Jorge A. Solis. I mention the 2008 decision in Berg to point out that there is nothing whatever new after four years of birther litigation, and that birthers have every reason to know better than to file these frivolous actions.

In the instant case Orly Taitz alleges that she has been harmed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), but never figures out exactly how the people she was suing actually harmed her as an individual. In addition, her complaint throws in everything but the kitchen sink in terms of unrelated causes and alleged injuries, none of which involve any specific act of a defendant that harmed Orly Taitz personally.

Orly’s caseload is dwindling. Her Indiana case was lost and all that remains is a possible slap on the wrist for her publishing a court reporter recording in contravention of what Judge Reid considered an order prohibiting it. The Mississippi case is winding down with the last round of briefs due Friday before the inevitable dismissal; the big issue there is the possibility of a demand for costs from the defendants. Orly’s Kansas case is lost. The Judd case was tossed in California Federal Court and her California election challenge in state court challenge was tossed.

Read the decision in Taitz v. Sebelius:

Continue Reading →

5 hours and counting

What do the Hawaii Vital Records office, the Selective Service System, the Social Security Administration and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act all have in common? Orly Taitz, in her massive mashup lawsuit Taitz v. Sebelius, is suing them all. The money quote is:

Taitz v Sebelius is similar to Roe v. Wade

It’s less than 5 hours until midnight Eastern Daylight Time and Orly Taitz is right up against a deadline to respond to motions to dismiss in the case of Taitz v. Sebelius. How is she responding the challenge and the pressure? By blogging about it on her web site, of course—and about jobs numbers, a phone conference, an upcoming pretrial conference, preparing for something, her multidistrict coordination filing (twice),  witnesses confirmed for Indiana, delivery of a letter to the Supreme Court clerk, activity in the Judd Case and something else about Indiana. I really think Taitz is suffering from a serious Internet addiction. Each one of those items is a separate article, and they’re still coming! Sometimes I think Orly’s blog is one of these reality TV shows about a dysfunctional bunch of people in a house full of cameras (shows I never watch).

She’s got a lot of work to do before midnight, like proofreading. The spell checker won’t catch “burry” instead of “bury” or “he” instead of “the.” What’s a “fbil”? And it’s “Wong Kim Ark” not “Kim Ark.” I don’t doubt that Kim’s a nice girl, but this has nothing to do with her. The draft response to the motions to dismiss seem pretty weak, not written with the precision and logic of a real lawyer. If only Orly had been in Professor Kingsfield’s class, but alas, her brain remains mush.


RICO statement filed.


Dealing with frivolous litigation, whether filed by a seasoned attorney or a novice pro se litigant, is a bit like wrangling cats.

Robert J. Davis

imageI’m still looking for a statute or rule that prevents this, but what I observe is that Orly Taitz is suing the same people for the same thing in different courts. Orly herself admits this in her notice of an application to consolidate three of her cases across multiple jurisdictions:

…cases, which were filed in several jurisdiction, but have in the core
the same nucleus of facts dealing with Candidate for President Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and fraudulently obtained Social Security number used to get on the ballot by fraud. (Judd 18)

I hold the degree of De Facto Doctor Juris Pro Hac Vice, which gives me the authority to read Wikipedia articles and summarize them on this blog.

One Wikipedia article I read was about collateral estoppel. This principle says that if you lose your case, you can’t just sue the same party again for the same thing under a different cause of action. Invocation of collateral estoppel requires a final judgment in a case, and all of the three (Taitz v. Sebelius, Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi and Judd v. Obama) are ongoing. Collateral estoppel might apply to defendant Michael Astrue of the Social Security Administration since he was sued previously by Taitz and won.

Another principle codified in 28 USC § 1927 is a prohibition against needlessly multiplying proceedings, but that seems to apply only within a single case.

Sanctions can be imposed for bringing a frivolous lawsuit, and that may be the remedy here. See Federal Rule 11 and 42 U.S.C § 1988(b).

The following table details the overlap of defendants in the three active Taitz federal Obama lawsuits. She is suing 36 parties in total.

Taitz v. Sebelius Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi Judd v. Obama
Barrack Hussein Obama Barrack Hussein Obama Barrack Hussein Obama
Nancy Pelosi Nancy Pelosi Nancy Pelosi
Brian Schatz   Brian Schatz
Lynn Matusow   Lynn Matusow
Alvin Onaka Alvin Onaka Alvin Onaka
Michael Astrue Michael Astrue Michael Astrue
Eric Holder   Eric Holder
William A Chatfield   William A Chatfield
Alice Travis Germond   Alice Travis Germond
  Obama for America Obama for America
+ 1 other + 3 others + 22 others

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.

Burning in the bosom v. Shaking in the boots

Orly Taitz reports in a mass emailing that her case challenging the Patient Protection and Accordable Health Care Act has been re-filed, this time to the Northern District of Texas. The California court said the venue was wrong.

Taitz v. Sebelius boils down to two points:

  1. PPACA denies equal protection because it (like Medicare) has a religious exemption, therefore since it is a tax, it falls unequally on people who don’t get the religious exemption.
  2. Obama is a foreigner with a Connecticut social-security number and can’t sign legislation.

Taitz, who seems to be fueled by anti-Muslim fervor, claims that it is the Muslims that would benefit from the religious exemption because their religion speaks against insurance; however, Muslims don’t opt out of Medicare, so this particular argument seems to be bogus.

What does bring a couple of milliseconds of anxiety is the fact that the case will be heard by a Texas judge, and one cannot help but remember the character of crazy Texas judge Quinn in the novel,  A Natural Born Citizen by Don Rosebrock. (Judge Quinn was modeled on a real-life crazy judge, but not one from Texas.) The judge assigned to Taitz’ case is Jorge A. Solis. According to the Dallas Bar Association, one of Judge Solis’ pet peeves is lawyers who are “not professional.”

I’m feeling better already.