2013-07-19 – Taitz v DPM, et al. – Taitz Corrected Response to Judge Wingate
Mark at the Fogbow responds to Orly’s response to Begley et al filing a notice that she had failed in Grinols v Electoral College. Orly somehow forgot that Judge England distinguished Grinols from Lindsey, which is really not that hard to do. She has filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court and is trying to have the two cases merged but they are quite unrelated… But Orly’s response is totally outrageous and may attract the attention of the Court…
“Currently both Lindsey and Grinols cases are being heard by the 9th Circuit, as the rulings are diametrically opposite and attorneys for the defense acted unethically by not providing the judge Lindsey decision. Attorneys for Obama and the Democratic Party of MS in the case at hand Sam Begley and Scott J. Tepper are flagrantly violating professional ethics by providing Hon. Judge Wingate with Grinols opinion while hiding from him Lindsey opinion, for which they should be sanctioned.”
Apparently Orly ignored footnote 7 from Judge Englund’s opinion:
“At the hearing, Plaintiffs relied heavily on a recently decided Eastern District of California case, Peace and Freedom Party v. Bowen. Although Plaintiffs discussed the case at the MTD hearing, Plaintiffs failed to include it in any of their filings. Neither California Defendants nor Federal Defendants could discuss the case as they learned about it on the spot. Moreover, even though Peace and Freedom Party has no precedential weight by this Court, the Court finds it distinguishable from the present action.”
Begley has brought to the attention of the court, the ruling in Grinols v Electoral college where Taitz challenged the President’s qualifications for office and which was dismissed by the District Court.
Finally some movement… Time to close another chapter..
The following transaction was entered on 7/18/2013 at 3:11 PM CDT and filed on 7/18/2013
Case Name: Taitz et al v. Democrat Party of Mississippi et al
Case Number: 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA
Document Number: No document attached
TEXT ONLY ORDER: Recently, Samuel Begley, counsel for defendants, telephoned this office asking permission to submit additional authority. The court did not speak to Mr. Begley, nor seek to learn the case authority offered. Defense may submit this additional authority by the end of the day (5 p.m.) on Friday, July 19, 2013. Should plaintiffs wish to respond, they may do so by the end of the day (5 p.m.) on Tuesday, July 23, 2013. The parties are not to submit narratives nor lengthy explanations regarding any submissions; the court seeks only the case cites, and a one or two sentence explanation of the parties purpose in submitting the authority. Submissions may be made by email to the chambers email address. The court anticipates issuing written opinions on the outstanding motions before the court within several days after the submission of any additional authority. Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 7/18/2013 (tn)
It was noted that ECF/CM relabeled the documents in Orly’s case in Mississippi. It will be interesting to see what Itext did to achieve these changes. It seems that they decided to embed the font used, probably to ensure a common experience across readers. I will likely present a before and after comparison of the file to determine what changed.
Some relevant metadata confuses the issues further. Never a boring minute. There are several documents that were scanned in with the PFU ScanSnap Manager (document 35.1, document 42.0 and document 61.0). But they show different versions of software, different PDF versions and different producers. Unraveling this will become a fun next task…
Let’s start with document 35 and its two attachments.
June 06, 2012
Samuel Begley submits document 35, a motion to supplement Counsel for MDEC’s response 30. Begley submits in addition 2 exhibits, one consisting of a letter written to Fuddy, Director of the Department of Health of Hawaii, with a copy of President Obama’s long form birth certificate attached, the other one, the letter of verification of the document found on the Whitehouse’s site, signed by Onaka, State Registrar. Document 35 explains that the signed document from Onaka, which contains the official seal of Hawaii was delivered to the Magistrate Judge’s chambers. The documents were filed on ECF on November 5, 2012.
In one of the pending cases, a person named Henry Blake, submitted an affidavit in which he compared various versions of President Obama’s long form birth certificates with the White House version
Goodness sakes, she did file it. What a disaster this one is going to be. Begley and Tepper would have a field day here…
MOTION for Default Judgment and Post Default Discovery as to Michael Astrue, filed by Orly Taitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of Papa, # 2 Exhibit 2 – Affidavit of Jordan, # 3 Exhibit 3 – SSNVS Certification, # 4 Exhibit 4 – Affidavit of Blake, # 5 Exhibit 5 – Affidavit of Zullo)(ND) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
Orly is asking for a default judgment against Astrue, in his official role in the US government. Sadly, default judgments against a government agency are strongly disfavored
Default judgments against the United States or, as here, officials of a federal department, are strongly disfavored. “No judgment by default shall be entered against theUnited States or an officer or agency thereof unless the claimant establishes a claim or right torelief by evidence satisfactory to the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(e). “[W]hen the government’s default is due to a failure to plead or otherwise defend, the court typically either will refuse to enter a default or, if a default is entered, it will be set aside.” C. Wright, A. Miller, M. Kane, 10A FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2702. One treatise asserts that Rule 55(e) should be applied to preclude “any default judgment for procedural violations by the United States,” and that “in all cases, the claim against the government must be proven.” Id.; accord O-J-R v. Ashcroft, 216 F.R.D. 150, 152 (D.D.C. 2003) (Rule 55(e) “prohibits courts from entering default judgments against the United States or officers or agencies thereof unless the claimant, by evidence satisfactory to the court, establishes a right to relief.” ).
Also, Orly has yet to show that she has properly served Astrue.
Orly claims to have properly served Astrue in his official government function but her ‘evidence‘ shows service of documents for her Indiana case. Furthermore, Orly claims that Astrue received his First Amended Complaint and summons through his attorney Helen L. Gilbert. (Hat Tip Dr Conspiracy)
She attests to this under penalty of perjury… Who is she trying to fool here with her unrelated service notes (NBC: See however note by Dr C below)? Really Orly, this is sloppy, even for you.
Poor James.. And poor poor Judge Wingate..
Document Number: 83
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to Intervene as an additional Plaintiff, by James R. Grinols. (ND)
Orly writes in her reply to the Court to Leah Lax’s accusations:
11. Additionally, as Judge Coleman was a retired judge and resided in a different county, not in Jackson, M5, he requested all filling to be sent to him via e-mail. Taitz e-mailed him the First Amended Complaint on April 13, 201.2. This negates the assertion by the Defendants that the First Amended complaint was submitted after April 15 deadline and was late. The chain of e-mails in exhibit 2 clearly shows that the presiding judge got the complaint on April 13, two day before the deadline, therefore the complaint was submitted timely.
Let’s look at the attachment…. The email bounced… The attachments were too large…. Fail….
Mail Delivery Subsystem < firstname.lastname@example.org> Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 6:10 PM To email@example.com
Delivery to the following recipient falled permanently: firstname.lastname@example.org
Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further inforrnation about the cause of this error. The error that the other serrer returned was: 552 552 Session size exceeds fixed maximum session size (state 18).
Dear Judge Coleman and counsel,
please find attached the First Amended Complaint, which includes additional plaintiffs and defendants, it relates to the generalelection challenge and includes RICO causes of action. This 44 page complaint was drafted before the answer was received and was filed as a matter of right. After it was filed by my assistant by mailing it to the court and all parties, I noticed that the answer was filed today as well
Plaintiffs are asking Your Honor to consider the complaint as a First Amended Complaint as a matter of right. ln the alternative, Plaintiffs are asking Your Honor to consider this complaint as an additional complaint filed in relation to the general election and join the two complaints together as revolving around the same nucleus of facts.
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Plaintiffs’ citation to a century-old secondary source has no application here for other reasons as well. First, the misquoted excerpt addresses only disputes arising out of political party nominating conventions and internal party rules. Second, the excerpt merely summarizesthe law, as it existed in 1905, in states other than Mississippi. In contrast, this case involvesMississippi’s 2012 general presidential election. In short, Plaintiffs’ 1905 Cyclopedia referenceis not only a misleading representation of the law, but it is also utterly irrelevant to this case.
Document Number: 77
Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Support re  MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Secretary of State of Mississippi (Matheny, Justin)
The case is getting more interesting. One of Orly’s ‘clients’, Leah Lax is now claiming that Orly added her signature to RICO document without her approval. Can’t wait to hear what Orly has to say about this… Another black Friday…
PS: Leah also includes an email to Orly in which she discloses that she has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer. We wish her well in her recovery. As I understand the outlook is quite good for this kind of cancer.
Document Number: 76
Docket Text: MOTION to Remove Leah Lax from the Entire Lawsuit and MOTION to Sanction Orly Taitz, filed by Leah Lax. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A – Email on 7/3/12, # (2) Exhibit B – Letter from Alan Miller, # (3) Exhibit C – Email on 11/8/12, # (4) Exhibit D – Emails on 11/9/12, # (5) Envelope)(ND)
Letter from Laurie Roth. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (ND) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
Tepper corrects in his letter a statement he made in court, which, on closer scrutiny was later found to be inaccurate, although largely immaterial.
MS 2012-11-20 – TvDPM - Tepper Letter to Court re November 16, 2012 Hearing
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.
Totally undermining Orly’s case And submitted by Orly…
Document Number: 71
Docket Text: NOTICE of Additional Proof of Service per Court Request, filed by Orly Taitz. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, # (2) Exhibit 2, # (3) Exhibit 3, # (4) Exhibit 4, # (5) Exhibit 5, # (6) Exhibit 6)(ND)
Mike Dunford explains
Taitz’s Opposition to the SOS’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Taitz: Mr. Matheny is saying that the court doe not have power to enjoin the SOS. The court does have the power to order the SOS to not certify the election. There was a case against Mr. Hosemann in 2004 that enjoined the SOS. Was about poaching in the open primary. Democratic Party was the plaintiff. This court issued declaratory relief and injunctive relief. The Fifth Circuit reversed that decision, but stated “yes, court has right to issue declaratory relief, injunctive relief, but there has to be a particular party to direct it at.” She refers to a California case, Rehne.
Taitz then asserts that Keyes v. Bowen [cited by Mr. Dukes] was a decision “that went against all precedents.” Went against Cleaver, blah blah blah. Obama’s mother’s passport shows his name was Soebarkah, he was adopted. Two names. We don’t know which one he is using is his real name.
This draws objections — goes beyond the arguments on the motions.
Taitz: Complaint is ripe. “They actually conceded the complaint was not late.” [BB's commentary: WTF? How does she arrive at that conclusion?]