The Birther lawsuit industry is apparently trying to contribute to the economic development of Mississippi as the paperwork piles up in Hinds County Circuit Court. Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire and California resident, filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State and the Executive Committee of the Mississippi Democratic Party. The petition to remove President Obama from the ballot was filed on February 14. Earlier post
The Secretary of State filed a motion to dismiss on March 1, pointing out she filed her lawsuit three weeks after the deadline to file such a suit. Yes, there are statues of limitations even in challenging Presidential ballots. Dr. Taitz, Esquire responded on March 19 with a filing that contained an opposition to the motion to dismiss AND motion for sanctions AND a motion for leave of court to file an amended complaint AND a RICO cause of action against the Democratic Party of Mississippi AND several other parties.
However, the fun starts on March 15. She filed a motion for summary judgment against the Secretary of State, an opposition to the motion to dismiss, AND a motion to recuse against the Attorney General for representing the Secretary of State. Dr. Taitz, Esq. totally ignored the Secretary of State's argument the petition should be dismissed since it was filed three weeks after the deadline and instead, ready for this?, argued since he did not oppose her motion for declaratory relief, the court should grant her motion. Um, ok.
Dr. Taitz doesn't stop there but also argues "a respondent cannot make up a cause of action." Um, ever heard of a "counterclaim", Orly? She claims President Obama is "known as a fraud, as a criminal, who is using forged documents." The motion to recuse the Attorney General is based upon a criminal complaint she submitted to the Attorney General against the President. She states the complaint calls for the criminal prosecution of the President and the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party of Mississippi. She claims the AG would suffer a conflict of interest by representing the Democratic Party and prosecuting them at the same time. Did you get that? She is claiming the Attorney General would suffer a conflict by representing the Democrats. Does she even understand basic civil procedure? Does she read the responses filed in court? Is civics part of her citizenship test? The Attorney General does not defend private parties (although he makes private lawyers rich). His client is the state of Mississippi and the appropriate agencies. The Democrats have a lawyer, Sam Begley, who signed every one of their responses and other filings. He was even nice enough to include his contact information. But apparently Dr. Taitz missed all that when she said the Attorney General would have a conflict of interest defending the Democratic Party. You.can't.make.this.up.
Delbert fired back with his own response stating in Mississippi there was no such conflict as the Attorney General represents all state agencies and that he had indeed responded to her allegation even if she chooses to ignore them.
However, the fun remains for Sam Begley, attorney for the Democratic Party of Mississippi and at times fellow practitioner of jackassery. Mr. Begley filed a motion in limine seeking to determine if Dr. Taitz, Esq. violated the laws against champerty in Mississippi. He cites Mississippi Code section 97-9-11 and asks the court to allow him to "cross-examine" the plaintiff to determine if she received "financial assistance" and if such assistance "induced" her to file her lawsuit. Section 97-9-11 states:
"It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, corporation, group, organization, or association, either incorporated or unincorporated, either before or after proceedings commenced: (a) to promise, give, or offer, or to conspire or agree to promise, give, or offer, (b) to receive or accept, or to agree or conspire to receive or accept,(c) to solicit, request, or donate, any money, bank note, bank check, chose in action, personal services, or any other personal or real property, or any other thing of value, or any other assistance as an inducement to any person to commence or to prosecute further, or for the purpose of assisting such person to commence or prosecute further, any proceeding in any court or before any administrative board or other agency, regardless of jurisdiction.."
Section 97-9-13 states anyone convicted of champerty "shall be punished by imprisonment for one year in the state penitentiary." Mr. Begley was not finished with Dr. Taitz, Esq. He also filed a motion to require an affidavit from the plaintiff. He argued Section 97-9-15 of the Mississippi Code gives him the right to "bring a motion" requiring the plaintiff to swear she has not received any compensation or "inducement" to pursue this lawsuit. That should be an interesting cross-examination. Mr. Begley then followed up with a motion for sanctions against Dr. Taitz on March 23.
The motion states the plaintiff lacks standing to file the lawsuit since she is a resident of California and her right to vote in California is not affected by the Mississippi ballot (She is now advertising for Mississippi plaintiffs to join her lawsuit on her website.). Mr. Begley argues the Mississippi Code does not give the Secretary of State or the Committee any authority to determine qualifications. The plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit 21 days after the deadline is mentioned to the court and sanctions are requested. Dr. Taitz is a member of the California Bar. He calls her lawsuit "frivolous" and ask the court to discipline the attorney.
Judge Kenneth Coleman of Union County will preside over a hearing on April 16, 2012. This should be fun.
Motion to require affidavit of Orly Taitz
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The Birther br'er patch gets more tangled.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Thanks for following this, KF. I would love to see the champerty issue pursued.
I've heard of plaintiffs' lawyers investing in one another's suits, and always wondered why that wasn't champerty - maybe it is.
But I'm not sure why the NRA soliciting $$ to help litigate 2d Amendment cases, or the ACLU's doing the same re: 1st Amendment cases, wouldn't be "champerty" under that definition. Again, maybe they are.
Is she going to file this lawsuit in every state until someone stops her?
Taitz should use the Todd Wade rule. 1) Deadlines don't matter, according to the Secretary of State and Attorney General. 2) The person on the ballot must show proof on why they should be on the ballot, otherwise, they are presumed to not be in compliance and thus removed from the ballot.
Taitz sounds like a Muslim name to me...where was Orly born? Whose the Daddy?
Let's hope this doesn't get very far or yet again, Missisissippi will be the butt of jokes for every comedian in the world.
Besides, I'm sick of reassuring everyone from from other places that we aren't all crazy and/or ignorant and/or there isn't something REALLY BAD in our air or water!
She's from the Soviet Union.
The lawyers here will love that she goes by Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire...not Dr. Orly Taitz,Esquire.
And, she can't pull your teeth while she's pulling your leg.
There's loads of film and her and she's truly , truly bizarre.
Can you post the Democratic Party's Motion to Dismiss?
@3:19
http://www.scribd.com/doc/86956850/MS-2012-03-07-MSDP-Motion-to-Dismiss-and-for-Sanctions
First document posted below the story. First page is a letter by Mr. Begley. If you don't see it at all, then you must be on an ipad or iphone as safari doesn't always pick up flash. There are three documents embedded into this post, two others linked. Its there.
Well, it was typical in the Soviet Union to use the system to ensure there was only one name on any ballot.
Facists were good at that as well.
It's much easier to take over a country without firing a shot and creating a one party system by eliminating the opposition will do it.
Indeed, didn't Saddam do that too and finally got to the place that he could just execute the remaining opposition with impunity?
Well...reading about Orly Taitz is fascinating.
She doesn't seem to know ( like one of your bloggers) that Dred Scott was overturned and she bases some of her legal arguments on The Magna Carta in her invented definition of " natural born citizen".
At first, I thought , as an immigrant, she might have language comprehension issues and a poor understanding of civics. But, I've come to believe she is , instead, clinically mentally ill.
She has apparently confronted Supreme Court Justices to tell them the Supreme Court is corrupt and their clerks are keeping her cases from coming to their attention. I suspect their security details have photos of her as her behavior is very similar to that of stalkers, all of whom fantasize some imaginary reason they are relevant/important to the life of victim of their attention.
She literally lies in claiming Obama's grandmother said he was born in Kenya ( she didn't as the unedited tape clearly shows) and in claiming Obama travelled to Pakistan in 1981 when US citizens were banned from travel there ( which The State Dept. refuted). And, these lies have been pointed out to her. It is typical for those who have paranoid fantasies to reject any concrete evidence that shows their delusion not to be real. And, any evidence on any aspect simply becomes in the paranoid mind, as it has in hers, fuels for the delusional thinking...the conspiracy becomes even deeper and more frightening that originally imagined.
She also appears , from her public bursts into tears, personally threatened citing, among other things, thoughts of her sons as the explanation .
I frankly have come to believe that the only reason she is has not been arrested for threatening a sitting President ( some of the comments she has made on her website certainly, to me, rise to a level of dangerous ) is the fear her arrest would just fuel the conspiracy theorists.
I think it's way past time the legal community finds a way to disbar attorneys who file these bogus lawsuits. It is necessary not just because it should be unethical behavior, but because you really need to keep mentally ill attorneys from practicing law and kindly, encourage them to seek medical treatment by no longer enabling them. She may have been sane when she got her degree, but I doubt she could test normal on an MMPI now.
Indeed, I will challenge her here to go on Dr. Phil and let him pick professionals to administer a psychological and physical evaluation. She could, after all, have a brain tumor or some other disorder affecting her behavior.
As a human, I feel sorry for her. As a Patriot, I find her dangerous.
I have to ask what's the point? If you wanted to have an effect, I'd think you would file this in a state where Obama stands a chance of getting electoral votes.
12:36 pm You are expecting an irrational person to be rational.
There is no point.
You think it's wild here--check out what going on in GA where there seems to be a serious move in the judiciary to remove Obama from the ballot there. It got far enough that the court subpenoed Obama's people to show up in court with evidence and the legal team completely blew the court off by not showing up. DOnt' have a link but that is the last I heard on the story.
@12:28
The GA case was settled around the first of Feb. The only "move in the judiciary" was to basically laugh the birthers out of court. 3 layers argued the case against, literally, an empty table, and still lost. The "subpoena" was issued by Taitz, not the judge, and apparently had no more legal power than the piece of paper she sent Arpaio asking him to be in Jackson. apeaking of Arpaio, he didn't respond to his GA "subpoena" either.
Delta
We don't involuntarily commit crazy people anymore. We elect them to office.
Post a Comment