MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Sloppy…
Orly is trying to explain why she missed the filing date by 1 day (sic). MS 23-15-961 and MS 23-15-963
If Taitz’s petition was filed with the Executive Committee on some date between January 8 and January 24, her fifteen day deadline to file her appeal with this Court expired at the earliest on January 23 and at the latest on February 8. Taitz did not file her petition with this Court until February 14. Her petition to this Court is time barred and must be dismissed. See Gourlay 874 So.2d at 988.
Where did Orly get the ‘one day’ late idea from? And why did her ‘paralegal’ cross out an earlier date and replaced it with a date which would already have placed the filing outside the time limit… If there were any questions about the filing date, would one not expect them to be made before the date passes?…
The Rules of Civil Procedure in MS are clear
(a) Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by order of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, as defined by statute, or any other day when the ourthouse or the clerk’s office is in fact closed, whether with or without legal authority, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, a Sunday, a legal holiday, or any other day when the courthouse or the clerk’s office is closed. When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation. In the event any legal holiday falls on a Sunday, the next following day shall be a legal holiday.
Comments are closed.
Does her purported paralegal actually exist?
Makes one doubt the “skills” this so-called paralegal possesses. I’d certainly never hire her. The language of the statute and the rules of civil procedure are unambiguous, so the phone call story related in the affidavit is very suspicious.
My experience with clerks of court and their deputies is that it’s a lot easier to get a date or a loan than it is to get any kind of legal advice. They are very nice and very helpful but they don’t do that because they do not want to get involved. My experience is also that judges are pretty protective of the clerks. Guys who were rude to the clerks often found it chilly in the chambers. I doubt that Ms. Taitz is aware of this and it could occur to her that shifting the burden to some clerk is a way out when it only makes her situation worse.
Whitepages says there is a Sandra F. Ingram of Pearl, MS, which matches the affidavit. However, the affidavit has a problem. Originally, it stated that Ingram had called the clerk’s office on September 25, 2012. This date has been crossed out and “February 13, 2012″, has been written in by hand and initialed with “sfi”.
In other words, on or about November 19, 2012, Ms. Ingram prepared or had prepared an affidavit claiming that she called the clerk’s office in September 25, which is a day after a previous hearing in this matter. Either before or after she executes the affidavit, she changes it to reflect that she made the call on February 13. Now, if there is any lesson in all the controversy about President Obama’s birthplace, it is that not every alteration, change or typo is the product of some vast, evil conspiracy so this may be a harmless mistake. On the other hand, I have also known people whose belief that they were the victim of a vast, evil conspiracy justified their own misconduct as necessary and excusable, at least to them..
Would it be worthwhile having a hearing to determine the truth of the matter? Hardly. Ms. Taitz filed late, full stop, end of story. Ms. Ingram will find her relations with the clerk’s office, ahem, difficult and I am sure that the clerk and deputies will make sure that those employ paralegals are aware of this. Like Hollywood, it’s just high school but with more money.
Funny how she didn’t get the name of that clerk….hmmmmm……mebbe a letter should have been better
Clerks are prohibited from giving legal advice. In California courts this fact is posted in every clerk’s office. However, scheduling matters is within a clerk’s responsibility. So, it is not impossible that Orly or her paralegal called the clerk, and asked the question. It is also possible that the question was not asked properly, or the clerk misunderstood the question, or forgot that the case was an election contest and gave an answer that would have been correct had the case not been an election contest.
Orly’s problem, which she does not address and probably does not even see, is whether the time limitation is “jurisdictional” that is, whether the court has no ability or authority to hear the case if the time limit is not met.