Orly Taitz has notified the federal court in the Central District of California [link to Taitz web site] that President Obama is in default in the case of Judd v. Obama, not having responded to her summons within the requisite 21 days. Taitz claims she served the President as a private individual at his residence, presumably the White House.
When properly served we know that President Obama does respond, for example in the Purpura case in New Jersey. Given Taitz’ history of insufficient service, one may speculate that it was the same here.
Certainly one problem is that there is no proof of service showing on the federal court docket (there is a proof of service of mailing her DVD later). The second difficulty is that while we know the date of summons, 9/11/2012, we do not know the date (if any) of service. I left this comment at Orly’s site (where it will doubtless never appear):
It is troubling to note that no proof of service appears on the federal court docket, nor does your notice to the court assert a date that the President was served, nor the manner of service. You seem to be [implying] that the President was served the same date that the summons was issued, which seems rather unlikely.
I don’t see how anyone could, from the information available, determine whether effective service of the President has occurred or not.
I presume that Orly read this since she published an article titled: “US Attorneys office is in the same building as the federal court. This is the reason, why service was on the same day as filing of the case” to which I replied:
You can’t have it both ways. If you serve the president through the US Attorney, you serve him as a federal defendant and he has 60 days to respond. If you serve him as a private person, you can’t effect service through the US Attorney. Your "courtesy service" doesn’t start the clock.
So how and when did you really serve the President?
I observe that other defendants did not reply by the October 2 date Orly claimed was in force for Obama. Georgia Secretary of State Kemp filed a motion to dismiss him from the suit on October 9, for lack of jurisdiction. The West Virginia Secretary of State moved for more time, also on the 9th, as did the LA County Registrar for failure to state a claim. New Hampshire moved to dismiss on October 12, claiming among other things, failure of service. Here’s what they said:
[Plaintiffs] have not properly served the New Hampshire defendants pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j)(2) [Serving a Foreign, State or Local Government]…
They also said some pages were missing 🙄 .
The federal defendants had 60 days to respond, but did so more promptly on October 11 with a motion to dismiss as well. What is interesting about the federal defendants is that in addition of a number of other grounds, they also cite “insufficiency of service process” saying:
Plaintiffs have not filed complete returns of service with the court in re these moving Defendants. To the extent that Plaintiffs have failed to properly effect service as required by Rule 4(i) [dealing with federal defendants] of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the action should be dismissed.
Also on the Judd docket are two notices of deficiencies in filing from the Court. The first deals with Plaintiff’s multijurisdictional coordination filing—apparently Orly left off the case number. The Secretary of State from West Virginia noted in the motion for an extension of time that Local Rule 7.1-1 had not been met. The Court has now noted that and cited it as a deficiency. Local Rule 7.1-1 requires a filing a “certification of interested parties.”
Certainly one of the problems for Taitz is that while she filed one lawsuit, now she has 32 parties making motions that she in turn must answer. All of the state defendants motions to dismiss will probably go quickly for lack of jurisdiction of a California court where defendants have no business interests or residence. I look as this case sort of like an oil spill in the ocean, something that is messy, time-consuming, and expensive to clean up.