Orders were issued by Judge Henry T. Wingate of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi yesterday (March 31) that dealt with the remaining issues in Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi. The 2012 case has been mired in the proverbial Mississippi mud for some time, but has finally reached resolution.
In his 64-page waste of judicial resources order Dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Judge Wingate provided a history of the proceeding.
- The additional evidence Taitz submitted January 21, 2014, is disregarded because it is immaterial to her ballot challenge, and does not remedy her lack of standing.
- The court dismissed the Onaka/Fuddy motion as moot.
- The motion to bifurcate, the motion for an evidentiary hearing, and Mr. Grinol’s motion to intervene are all dismissed as moot.
- No individual injury was alleged in the case due to Obama being on the ballot.
- Taitz did not file a timely primary election challenge under Mississippi law or if she did, her petition to the court for review was not timely. That challenge, as well as her email challenge to the General Election ballot is dismissed for failing to comply with the state statutory prerequisites (not timely, and no bond posted).
- The Mississippi Secretary of State has no duty to vet candidates for office.
- Citing several Obama eligibility cases under the topic of “political question,” the court said “…this court can find no authority in the Constitution which would permit it to determine that a sitting president is unqualified for office or a president-elect is unqualified to take office.”
- Taitz did not allege any facts that would support her RICO claim against the Mississippi Secretary of State.
- The Secretary of State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.
- Many Obama eligibility cases are cited on the question of standing. The “candidate” plaintiffs, Lax, Roth and MacLeran did not seek to be on the Mississippi ballot or to receive their party’s nomination, and so lack “competitive standing.” The court can provide no remedy for alleged threats from anonymous third parties.
- Taitz had no authority to issue the subpoena she sent to Hawaii because she’s not admitted to the bar in Mississippi, nor in Hawaii.
- “…the plaintiffs’ complaint and RICO statement are far from a model of clarity.” “Further, plaintiffs have deluged the court with documents brimming with accusations, conclusory statements, and general attacks.” “…plaintiffs have thrown a haystack at the court, expecting the court to find a needle therein.”
- The RICO complaint failed to allege any harm to Taitz’ business as a result of specific illegal acts by the defendants (the Mississippi Secretary of State RICO claim already dismissed at this point).
- No standing for the RICO suit. Dismissed.
The court has reviewed the extensive and jumbled pleadings by the plaintiffs. … The court is not persuaded that the plaintiffs have asserted any viable causes of action. This court, thus, dismisses the plaintiffs’ claims.