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.
Read more:
- Previous case, where Judd sued President Obama for $500 billion dollars.
- Jack Ryan collection of Judd documents at Scribd
We were talking about the time to write an article on the other thread. This one took a really (3+ hours) long time because of all the documents that had to be researched, downloaded, read, uploaded, and hyperlinked.
As Butterfly Bilderberg at Fogbow has pointed out there is no operative complaint in this case since Orly’s initial filing was an improper removal from state court. This case is a complete mess from the start and could turn very, very ugly for Orly in the long run. She better pray it is dismissed quickly.
As with any Orly Taitz case, the question is not whether she will lose, but the manner in which she will lose–there are so many possibilities to choose from.
Only a ditz like Orly would serve the president on 9/11.
I feel sorry for the increased dental malpractice others will suffer once Obama is out of office.
She’s adorable when she plays make-believe lawyer. What a head case 😛
She’s deadly when she plays dentist – Marathon Man.
Someone should research how Orly got a dental degree. Really.
By the way, in the Soviet education system, which still prevails today in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, doctors and dentists have four years of basically theoretical studies, get their “Doctorate” after that but then are supposed to work between two and four years as an intern under supervision at a hospital or clinic, before being allowed to work on their own. Did Orly fool the system?
Why is she not on the alumni list of her Jerusalem university? And what about living in Romania for some time, as she once claimed in an interview with a local journalist (of course that journalist also seems to have misinterpreted her gymnastics photos and turned her into a swimsuit model, but Orly never complained about that either).
Oh For Goodness sake published two photos of Orly which show how haggard she looks in the fourth year of her jihad against the President.
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=24020
It would be nearly impossible for a competent attorney to manage complex litigation involving multiple defendants around the country without the assistance of other attorneys (or at least a battery of paralegals). And since “Orly” and :competent” are words which do not belong in the same sentence…
Orly is a pariah among Birthers. Could a person go any lower?
Even if there was a proper action before the Court, and there isn’t, default cannot, as a matter of law, be granted without valid service appearing on the docket. And service is not proper anyway.