Is Orly’s case doomed?
This evening I received upon request a copy of the Motion to dismiss, and Memorandum in support of the Indiana Secretary of State and Elections commission in the case of Taitz v. Elections Commission from the public relations officer of the Indiana Attorney General. Here they are:
The Memorandum provides a blow-by-blow account of what’s happened to date, bringing light where before there was only Taitz. We see laid out before us the history of motions, orders and decisions that led to the trial on limited causes of action and defendants scheduled for this Monday, October 22.
The Memorandum is 40 pages, but here’s my take on the significance of this as to what happens on Monday. First, let’s go back to Fogbow contributor GreatGrey’s hearing notes:
Judge Reid: I think what you’re getting at is Taitz lost with the EC, she appealed that and lost, and is now here trying to make an end run around the EC’s ruling.
The Defense plays this language back in their Memorandum, saying:
This Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims as an attempted end-run around the requirements of AOPA [Indiana Administrative Orders and Procedures Act], as barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and as repetitive and vexatious litigation.
The argument basically says that there is an exclusive statutory procedure for judicial review of election challenges: The objection is decided by the Elections Commission and that decision can be appealed and then there can be a petition for judicial review; however, Plaintiffs didn’t do that; rather than follow the Statute on how to obtain judicial review, they just filed a complaint for an injunction and such. Because the proper judicial body already decided the objection and Objectors lost on appeal, Plaintiffs can’t just try the same thing again in Superior Court.
In my view, the significance of this argument is that no matter what Orly wants to present in the way of evidence that the Democratic candidate for President is a Martian Muslim named Barack Mohammed Soebarkah, she’s out of luck because his ballot position has already been decided. If Judge Reid accepts this argument, then there can be no testimony from Taitz’ witnesses about Obama that is relevant to whatever part, if any, remains in the case.
While the trial Monday is set to cover only a small part of the entire Second Amended Complaint both as to causes of action and defendants, it looks like everything that pertains to Defendants under the court’s jurisdiction (by being actually served with the complaint) either has been dismissed already, or will likely be dismissed on Monday for
- res judicata
- collateral estoppel
- lack of subject matter jurisdiction
- failure to state a valid claim
- lack of standing
- failure to file tort claims notice
- sovereign immunity
or the Judge may dismiss the whole mess as a sanction for not following the rules.