On the eve of a decision by federal Judge Wingate in Mississippi, Orly Taitz filed something that delayed the decision in the long-running Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi case, including punking comments from her own web site. Now she’s filed even more “stuff” with a motion today for leave to file new facts and opinions (h/t to NBC).
Her motion is accompanied by one item we pretty much expected, the Dissenting Opinion by Chief Justice Moore from the Alabama Supreme Court decision in the case of McInnish v. Chapman. She thinks this minority opinion is something the Court should look at. While on the surface this might seem to be a tiny help to Taitz since Judge Moore opined that the presidential eligibility questions do not become moot after the election because the same issues are likely to repeat, and his view that in Alabama the Secretary of State has an obligation under law to investigate questionable candidates, it actually undermines her position because Judge Moore further states that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear eligibility cases, citing Hutchinson v. Miller:
Had the framers wished the federal judiciary to umpire election contexts, they could have so provided. Instead, they reposed primary trust in popular representatives and in political correctives.
The second item is one less familiar, the oral argument in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Lindsay v. Bowen case. In this case California Secretary of State Bowen denied a 2012 ballot position to Peace and Freedom Party presidential candidate Peta Lindsay because she was under age. Bowen argues that she has the authority to do this. Taitz argues that in Mississippi, the Secretary of State must investigate candidates and exclude ineligible ones.
While neither of these two items is precedential, I can understand why someone grasping at straws might submit them; however, what took me totally by surprise was the appearance of
The Orly Taitz Super PAC
“No one expects the Orly Taitz Super PAC!”
Further evidence of RICO conspiracy to cause financial damage to Taitz by fraud—a printout of a website, “Orly Taitz for AG PAC” (Exhibit 1) which is collecting campaign contributions supposedly to assist Orly Taitz campaign for AG, while in reality the owners and operators of this web site have no connection to Orly Taitz and any money collected do not benefit her campaign.
The concept of a PAC is that they are not supposed to be connected to or coordinated with the candidate. The Taitz Super PAC is quite up front about this:
The Orly Taitz Super PAC is an independent political action committee, not coordinated with any candidate. Donations to the PAC will be used to influence voter opinion on issues that are of concern to California voters in the upcoming Attorney General race.
Of course in a universe where everything revolves around Taitz, I guess Super PAC’s have a different rule. My question is: What does that have to do with the Mississippi case? Taitz does not allege that any of her named RICO defendants is behind the Super PAC.
I gave the Orly Taitz Super PAC only slight mention earlier in the month. The site has been evolving slowly with improved graphics and an occasional story highlighting some of the wackier aspects of Taitz’ run for “CA AG.” One thing that has changed is its donations page. In an earlier version, they asked for donations by mail (but never gave a mailing address). Now they talk about receiving donations through groups of local supporters:
We have been overwhelmed by the interest shown in the Taitz race for Attorney General. Significant direct donations have been received through civic and patriotic organizations across the state and this will be our primary means of fundraising. Please continue your support, as we continue to build organizational relationships throughout the state. Be ready when your name is called!
To date, there is still no way to make online donations to the Super PAC and this is being explained by security concerns, so either these guys are pretty paranoid, or it’s some kind of satire. There are alleged supporter statements claiming that donations have occurred, but this could not of course be verified.
Taitz also cites Internet rumors:
Taitz, also, provides copies of comments made by her supporters and donors, reflecting that aside from a bogus Super PAC, someone created a bogus foundation with a name slightly different from the name of Taitz foundation and is collecting money, whereby depriving Taitz of donations and contributions by virtue of fraud.
The Orly Taitz foundation is “Defend Our Freedoms Foundation,” and the other is “Protect Our Freedoms Foundation.” The only search engine hit for “Protect our Freedoms Foundation” is back to to Orly’s site. Taitz, in her typical disregard for her readers, publishes the email and IP address of the commenter. Taitz claims on her web site [link to Taitz web site, March 15 article] that her Google+ profile had been changed and her email address switched to someone trying to lure donations. (I think it more likely that Taitz herself just fat-fingered her email address when she created her Google+ profile, entering email@example.com rather than firstname.lastname@example.org.) I’m not a Google+ wonk, but it looks like both email addresses go to the same Google+ profile (orly.taitz and orlytaitz).
It is possible that the email about donations is a hoax, and for that matter the Orly Taitz Super PAC could be a hoax as well. If so, that’s at least three hoaxes that made it into the Mississippi case.
A motion in opposition has been filed by the Democratic defendants. It begins:
Plaintiff Taitz, who has been an attorney for over 11 years, in her latest motion seeks to introduce what she describes as three items of “additional evidence and rulings supporting her opposition to defendants motion to dismiss” [sic]. The items in questions are neither evidence nor rulings; they are also wholly irrelevant to the disposition of the fully-briefed dispositive motions.
Note that in this opposition the Alabama case is styled McInnish v. Bennett. Bennett is the current Secretary of State of Alabama and has been substituted for Beth Chapman as the defendant in that action.