MS- Orly v Democrat Party – Response to Motion ….

Orly filed some meaningless documents and the defense is quick to point this out. He worst failure is to quote from the dissenting opinion rather than the ruling. That’s a major no-no in law. Poor Orly realizes that she is losing the case and hopes, by filing nonsense, she can delay the inevitable

Document Number: 110

Docket Text:
RESPONSE to Motion re [109] MOTION for Leave to File filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Begley, Samuel)

Plaintiff first requests that the Court take into consideration the dissents (but not the ruling or concurrences) from a recently decided Supreme Court of Alabama case [ECF 105-3]. This case interpreted an Alabama statute (§ 17-14-31(a), Ala. Code 1975) that concerns the Alabama Secretary of State’s obligation to place nominees on the ballot. The dissents that Taitz requests the Court consider are irrelevant to the disposition of any pending motion in this case.

MS – Taitz v Democrat Party – SOS Joinder

Document Number: 108
Docket Text:
Joinder in Document by Secretary of State of Mississippi to [106] Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Matheny, Justin)

In addition to the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee’s arguments adopted herein by reference, Secretary of State Hosemann submits that the Plaintiff’s latest filing consists of irrelevant, inadmissible, and otherwise inappropriate arguments and documents, and Secretary of State Hosemann’s pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Docket No. 8, should be granted for all the reasons previously submitted to the Court through his prior briefing and argument.

MS – Taitz v Democrat Party – Response in opposition to motion for leave

Wow, in a few well chosen words, Begley explains why Orly’s so-called evidence fails.

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 question are neither evidence nor rulings; they are also wholly irrelevant to the disposition of the fully-briefed dispositive motions.

Document Number: 106

Docket Text:
RESPONSE in Opposition re [105] MOTION for Leave to File ADDITIONAL NEW FACTS AND OPINIONS filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Begley, Samuel)

MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Motion for leave

Orly appears to be really intent on having the court delay its ruling until after President Obama has left office… She has filed a motion for leave to file new facts and opinions. None of which really help her case.

Document Number: 105

Docket Text:
MOTION for Leave to File Additional New Facts and Opinions filed by Orly Taitz. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 – Orly Taitz for AG PAC, # (2) Exhibit 2 – Transcription of Court Recording, 13-15085, # (3) Exhibit 3 – Supreme Court of Alabama Doc.)(ND)

MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Reply to opposition in detail

With comments interspersed. Will update over time, Orly’s response is fascinating and very Orlyesque. I am not a lawyer, just my best reading.

IN THE US DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ et al
v.
Democratic Party of Mississippi et al )

CASE 12-CV-280 HON HENRY WINGATE

REPLY TO OPPOSITION AND IN SUPPORT OF RELEVANCE TO NEW MATERIAL FACTS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ON 01.21.2013

On January 22 parties held a phone conference with Judge Wingate. During the conference Hon Judge Wingate ordered Defendants to respond within 2 weeks to January 21 “Notice of New Material Facts” filed by Plaintiff Taitz. Taitz to reply within a week after the last response. Further, this court brought to the attention of the parties a comment that Judge Wingate’s law clerk found as being posted on the web site of Orly Taitz, OrlyTaitzESQ.com, by one Virgil E. Byrd, where aforementioned Virgil Byrd made an allegation of ex-parte communication by this court and made defamatory statements. (Exhibit 1 “Virgil E. Byrd” comment.) Hon. Judge Wingate advised the parties that he will contact the US Attorney for the Southern District of MS and he will be seeking  a criminal investigation to ascertain identity of the individual who made this comment.

Continue reading

MS – Taitz v Democrat Party – Docket as of 2014/02/12

U.S. District Court
Southern District of Mississippi (Northern (Jackson))
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA
Taitz et al v. Democrat Party of Mississippi et al
Assigned to: District Judge Henry T. Wingate
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson

Case in other court:  Circuit Court of Hinds County, Ms, 251-12-00107 CIV

Continue reading

MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Reply to opposition

Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 2/12/2014 at 2:55 PM CST and filed on 2/12/2014
Case Name: Taitz et al v. Democrat Party of Mississippi et al
Case Number: 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA
Filer: Orly Taitz
Document Number: 104
Docket Text:

Reply to Opposition and in Support of Relevance to New Material Facts submitted to the Court on 1/21/2013, filed by Orly Taitz. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 – Virgil E. Byrd comment, # (2) Exhibit 2 – American Thinker Article, # (3) Exhibit 3 – 7/18/2013 Text Order)(ND)

MS – Taitz v Democrat Party – Piling on..

Hahaha…
Document Number: 102

Docket Text:
Joinder in Document by Barak Hussein Obama, Obama for America, Nanci Pelosi to [100] Response in Opposition, filed by Loretta Fuddy, Alvin Onaka, [98] Response in Opposition, filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Begley, Samuel)

Document Number: 103

Docket Text:
Joinder in Document by Secretary of State of Mississippi to [100] Response in Opposition, filed by Loretta Fuddy, Alvin Onaka (Matheny, Justin)

MS – Taitz v Democrat Party – ROTFL

Orly is getting another lesson in law… Not that she will understand…

Document Number: 100
Docket Text:
Response in Opposition re [96] NOTICE of New Material Facts Related to the Case by Orly Taitz. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 – Letter to FOIA, # (2) Exhibit 2 – Letter from FOIA, # (3) Exhibit 3 – Memorandum Opinion, (4) Exhibit 4 – Certificate of Death).(TLC) filed by Loretta Fuddy, Alvin Onaka (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit News Article – 12/11/13, # (2) Exhibit News Article – 12/12/13, # (3) Exhibit News Article – 1/13/14, # (4) Exhibit Rhodes v. MacDonald)(Dukes, Walter)

Document Number: 101
Docket Text:
Joinder in Document by Loretta Fuddy, Alvin Onaka to [98] Response in Opposition, filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit News Article – 12/11/13, # (2) Exhibit News Article – 12/12/13, # (3) Exhibit News Article – 1/13/14, # (4) Exhibit Rhodes v. MacDonald)(Dukes, Walter)

MS – Taitz v Democrat Party – Me Too

Document Number: 99
Docket Text:  Joinder in Document by Secretary of State of Mississippi to [98] Response in Opposition, filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Matheny, Justin)

Defendant Secretary of State Delbert Hoseman opposes Plaintiff Orly Taitz’s “Notice of New Material Facts Related to the Case,” Docket No. 96, and joins in and adopts herein by reference the Response of the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee in Opposition to Plaintiff Orly Taitz’s “Notice of New Material Facts Related to the Case,” Docket No. 98. In addition to the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee’s arguments adopted herein by reference, Secretary of State Hosemann submits that the Plaintiff’s latest filing consists of irrelevant, inadmissible, and otherwise inappropriate arguments and documents, and Secretary of State Hosemann’s pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Docket No. 8, should be granted for all the reasons previously submitted to the Court through his prior briefing and argument.

MS – Taitz v Democrat Party – Reponse in opposition to notice of new materials

Short and to the point. This case is not going anywhere for Orly. All she can hope for is limiting her sanctions

Document Number: 98  Response in Opposition re [96] NOTICE of New Material Facts Related to the Case by Orly Taitz. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 – Letter to FOIA, # (2) Exhibit 2 – Letter from FOIA, # (3) Exhibit 3 – Memorandum Opinion, # (4) Exhibit 4 – Certificate of Death).(TLC) filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Begley, Samuel)

MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Ruling delayed

Realist has posted a summary of the telephone conference in Orly v Democrat Party

Judge Wingate, who had scheduled a telephone conference all to rule on the pending motions, instead focused on Orly’s filing of what appears to be a motion, and delayed ruling to study these new allegations/information.

He also spent time on a poster at Orly’s who stated

Virgil E. Byrd
January 20th, 2014 @ 6:02 am

I spoke at some length to Henry at our once-a-year Yale Club (he was class of ’72 and I was ’70) get together in mid-December at the Clarion Hotel in Jackson about you and your shenanigans.

I advised him to throw the book at you. He laughed and told me I have nothing to worry about as “everything is proceeding on schedule. She won’t get away scot-free.” He added, “We’re making the b*tch squirm a little first.”

Orly was not impressed.

dr_taitz@yahoo.com
January 20th, 2014 @ 6:33 am

I do not believe any judge would say anything like that. I believe you are making this up to harass and intimidate me. I will ask Judge Wingate for a subpoena to internet providers seeking the name and address of all the individuals harassing me

The Judge took the allegation seriously and said he would be referring the matter to the Attorney General Office and would consider issuing a subpoena to identify said poster. Or at least, this is what Orly suggested. I can understand why the Judge would like to resolve these allegations as they attempt to impugn the credibility of a federal judge, even though Orly herself does not seem to believe the poster.

So, any rulings in this case will be delayed by at least 2 weeks for the defendants to reply to Orly’s ‘motion’ and then another week or two for Orly to file a rebuttal. After this, the Judge may schedule another hearing to rule on the pending motions, which may render the case moot, or the judge may wait until the identify of the poster is known, which could delay the matters by months, if not longer.

So, for those who were hoping on the case being resolved, we may have to wait until after President Obama has retired :-)

 

MS – Orly v Democrat Party – enabling more sanctions?

Orly, already facing possible sanctions for needlessly multiplying proceedings, filed another ‘motion’ to inform the judge of meaningless chatter. Why Orly believes that anonymous postings which are nothing much than Orly baiting, have any legal relevance, is beyond me, but then again, she also has quite a confused understanding of what is ‘evidence’…

Orly also brings up Henry Blake’s foolish ‘analysis’ and affidavit…

How silly can one get… Tomorrow Judge Wingate will rule on the pending motions and not on sanctions but this will the time where she will find out that the Judge has rejected her claims, granted judgment on the motions and will entertain motions for sanctions and attorney costs.

And a shout out on Reality Check Radio…

MS – Orly v Democrat (sic) Party – Hinds County Court Docket

Case # 2012-107 Filed: 02/14/2012 Case Type: COMPLAINT
Judge GOWAN Closed: 04/24/2012 District : 1
Style:
TAITZ ORLEY DR SELF REPRESENTED
     Vs
DEMOCRAT PARTY OF MISSISSIPPI ET AL
SECRETARY OF STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
LINE DATE EVENT DESCRIPTION Book – Page
1 02/14/2012 PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIE
F
2 02/14/2012 COURT REGISTRY CHECK #1267 FOR $300 RECEIVED
AS BOND FROM DEFEND OUR FREEDO
M FOUNDATION
3 02/21/2012 MISC EMAILED ORDER APPOINTING
SPECIAL JUDGE TO ATTY OF
RECORD
4 02/21/2012 ORDER OF SUPREME COURT – R KENNETH C
OLEMAN APPOINTED SPECIAL JUDGE
726-638 Document
5 02/28/2012 PAYMENT REC FROM DEFEND OUR FREEDOM FO
UNDATION
6 02/28/2012 SUMMONS ISSUED AND RET TO PL- NO COPIES OF CO
MPLAINT PROVIDED- COPY COST $2
88.00 PER COPY
7 03/01/2012 MOTION OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO DISMI
SS
HAROLD E PIZZETTA III, JUSTIN
L MATHENY,ATTY CC: SAMUEL L
8 03/01/2012 MISC BEGLEY, DR ORLY TAITZ
9 03/07/2012 MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR DECLAR
ATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AN
D FOR SANCTIONS
SAMUEL L BEGLEY,ATTY CC: R
10 03/07/2012 MISC KENNETH COLEMAN, ORLY TAITZ,HA
ROLD E PIZETTA, JUSTIN L MATHE
NY
11 03/15/2012 SUMMONS SENT SHERIFF’S OFFICE – ATTY C
HECK HINDS
12 03/15/2012 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, MOTIONFO
R SUMMARY AGENT SECT OF STATE,
MOTION TO RECUSE ATTY GENERAL
AS FROM REPRESET.OF SECT OF ST
13 03/15/2012 MISC DR ORLY TAITZ, ATTY CC:ATTORNE
Y GENERAL,SAMUEL L BEGLEY
14 03/19/2012 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS BY DEMOCR
ATIC PARTY OF MISSISSIPPI
DR ORLEY TAITZ,ATTY
15 03/23/2012 RESPONSE OF MS SECRETARY OF STATE IN OP
P TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY AND RE
SPONSE IN OPP TO MOTION TO REC
USE ——- JIM HOOD, HAROLD E
16 03/23/2012 MISC PIZETTA III, JUSTIN L MATHENY,
ATTYS CC: ORLY TAITZ, SAMUEL L
BEGLEY
17 03/23/2012 RESPONSE OF MS DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXE. CO
MMITTEE TO MOTION FOR SANCTION
S AND MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAIN
T —SAMUEL L BEGLEY,ATTY
18 03/23/2012 MISC CC: ORLY TAITZ, HAROLD E PIZZE
TTA, JUSTIN L MATHENY
19 03/23/2012 MOTION IN LIMINE OF MS DEMOCRATIC PAR
TY EXE. COMMITTEE
20 03/22/2012 SUMMONS EX 3-19-12 ON SAM BEGLEY FOR
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF MS
21 03/22/2012 SUMMONS EX 3-19-12 ON TOM RILEY FOR
SECRETARY OF STATE
22 03/26/2012 ORDER SET FOR HEARING 4-16-12 IN JA
CKSON
729-527 Document
23 03/26/2012 MISC EMAILED ORDER SETTING HEARING
TO ATTYS OF RECORD THIS DATE
24 03/26/2012 MOTION OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO REQUIRE
AFFIDAVIT OF PL
SAMUEL L BEGLEY, ATTY CC:ORYLY
TAITZ, HAROLD E PIZETTA,
25 03/26/2012 MISC JUSTIN L MATHENY
26 03/30/2012 MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF COUNSEL PRO H
AC VICE FOR SCOTT J TEPPER
SAMUEL L BEGLEY, ATTY CC:HAROL
D E PIZZETTA,JUSTIN L MATHENY,
27 03/30/2012 MISC ORLY TAITZ,
28 04/02/2012 LETTER FILED OF SAMUEL L BEGLEY TO MS SUPRE
ME COURT CLERK
29 04/02/2012 LETTER FILED OF SAMUEL L BEGLEY TO MISSISSI
PPI BAR
30 04/02/2012 LETTER FILED OF SAMUEL L BEGLEY TO JUDGE R
KENNETH COLEMAN
31 04/02/2012 NOTICE OF CAMERA COVERAGE OF JACKSON
JAMBALAYA/NORTHSIDE SUN (JAMES
HENDRIX)
32 04/04/2012 LETTER FILED FROM SANUEL L BEGLEY TO JUDGE
COLEMAN ON NOTICE OF DEFICIENC
Y
33 04/04/2012 MISC FILE CHECKED OUT BY SAM
BEGLEY. 601-969-5545
34 04/04/2012 MISC FILE CHECKED BACK IN
35 04/05/2012 ORDER SCOTT J TEPPER ADMITTED PRO HA
C VICE FOR MS DEMOCRATIC PARTY
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
730-242 Document
36 04/05/2012 MISC EMAILED ORDER TO ADMIT TO
ATTYS OF RECORD AND PLTF THIS
DATE/MAILED TO SAMUEL L
BEGLEY
37 04/13/2012 ORDER OF CONTINUANCE 731-60 Document
38 04/13/2012 ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF MISSISSIPPI SECRETARY OF ST
ATE
HAROLD E PIZZETTA III, JUSTIN
L MATHENY,ATTYS CC: ORLY TAITZ
39 04/13/2012 MISC SAMUEL L BEGLE Y
40 04/13/2012 ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF MS DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTI
VE COMMITTEE
SAMUEL L BEGLEY,SCOTT J TEPPER
ATTYS CC:ORLEY TAITZ,HAROLD E
41 04/13/2012 MISC PIZZETTA, JUSTIN L MATHENY,SCO
TT J TEPPER
42 04/19/2012 MOTION EMERGENCY FOR MS SUBPOENA TO S
UPPORT CALIFORNIA SUB
43 04/19/2012 MOTION IN LIMINE BY PLAINTIFF
44 04/19/2012 RESPONSE TO LETTER BY SAMUEL BEGLEY DEM
ANDING TO WAIVER FOR ATTY SCOT
T J TEPPER THE REQUIREMENT TO
DISCLOSE ADDRESS
45 04/19/2012 COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED, PETITION FOR EM
ERGENCY INJUNCTION FROM GENERA
L ELECTION,PERMANENT INJUNCTIO
N,DECLARATORY RELIEF,TREVLE DA
46 04/19/2012 MISC CONTINUED FROM LINE 45, DAMAGE
S IN RICO
47 04/19/2012 STIPULATION CONVERTING SUBPOENA INTO TOUCH
DEMAND
48 04/19/2012 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS BY DEMO P
ARTY,MOTION FOR SANCTIONS,FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAIN
T AND ADD RICO CAUSE AGAINST
49 04/19/2012 MISC CONT’D — DEMOCRATIC PARTY ET
AL FOR ELECTIONS FRAUD, SOCIAL
SECURITY FRAUD,UTTERING A FORG
ED ID PAPERS
50 04/23/2012 ORDER CONTINUED – NO 5-7-12 HEARING
DATE
731-558 Document
51 04/23/2012 MISC EMAILED ORDER TO ATTY OF REC
04-24-12
52 04/24/2012 REMOVAL PAPERS HAROLD E PIZZETTA III, JUSTIN
L MATHENY, ATTYS CC: SAMUEL L
BEGLEY, SCOTT J TEPPER,ORLEY T
AITZ, BRIAN FEDORKA,LAURIE
53 04/24/2012 MISC LAURIE ROTH, LEAH LAX, TOM MAC
LERAN
54 04/26/2012 MISC EMAILED ORDER OF RECUSAL TO
ATTY OF RECORD
55 04/26/2012 ORDER ORDER OF RECUSAL 732-175 Document

Taitz in Mississippi Burning Part 5

Orly, perhaps unaware of what she will set in motion, files a first amended complaint on April 19, 2012

She continues to ask for declaratory and injunctive relief and adds triple damages for RICO…

She adds Brian Fedorka, Leah Lax, Laurie Roth and Tom MacLaren as plaintiffs and  extends the list of plaintiffs to include President Obama, “Obama for America”, Loretta Fuddy, Alvin Onaka, Michael Astrue (Commissioner of Social Security), Nanci Pelosi (chair of the National Democratic Party nominating convention) and many John and Jane Does.

In typical Orly-esque fashion she still does not file a RICO statement. She now has tripped the legal trap that she had set herself…

5 days after Orly set in motion the clock, the Secretary of State of Mississippi files a removal notice with the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. By adding RICO, Orly has opened up a pandora box as the defendants now have the opportunity to remove the case from State Court to Federal Court. Let the fun times begin…

04/24/2012 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Secretary of State of Mississippi from Circuit Court of Hinds County, Ms, case number 251-12-107 CIV. (Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 34643015410)Pursuant to Rule L.U.Civ.R. 5(b): within 14 days removing party must electronically file the entire state court record as a single filing; and all parties shall, within fourteen days after the Case Management Conference, file as separate docket items any unresolved motions that were filed in state court which they wish to advance. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – First Amended Complaint, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(ND) (Entered: 04/25/2012)

Taitz in Mississippi Burning Part 1

The title references the movie Mississippi Burning which describes the disappearance of civil right workers in Mississippi. In this case, I use it to describe the disappearance of Orly’s MS State Court filing into the Federal system because of her legal failures and the evolution of the Federal case in which Orly desperately tries to file a RICO case, properly serve the parties and is now facing various possible avenues of sanctions. It’s a sordid story of failures.

So let’s start with the State Case which was filed in Miss. Hinds Cty. Cir. Ct. on Feb. 14, 2012. Orly, as the sole plaintiff, filed a petition for injunctive and declaratory against the Democrat (sic) Party and the Secretary of State relief to have President Obama be removed as a presidential candidate from the Mississippi Ballot because of fraud and to have the court declare President Obama ineligible.

Continue reading

MS – Taitz v Democrat Party – Piffle

At the Fogbow, Piffle has posted the following overview of Orly’s follies and those of her fellow plaintiffs. Remember that the defendants have put Orly on notice that they may be pursuing Section 1927 sanctions which are sanctions that go directly to the attorney, not the parties. In the next few postings I intend to explore the extent of her incompetent filings and arguments in more details, as the court was helpful in pointing out some of them during one of the hearings. Furthermore, given the shoddy nature of the RICO filings, her failures to properly redact SSN numbers, not to mention barratry and the unauthorized practice of law… And given that the attorneys for the defendants are intimately aware with Orly’s follies, the hearing may be quite a spectacle.

PS: The punishment for Champerty and maintenance is one year

§ 97-9-13. Champerty and maintenance; penalty.

Any person violating any of the provisions of Section 97-9-11 shall be guilty of maintenance and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for one year in the state penitentiary.

But back to Piffle

The only high-stakes hand at this table is T88, who’s all-in. The game is five-card Section 1927 sanctions which are attorney sanctions, not party sanctions. The big fish is the one who “multiplies the proceedings …unreasonably and vexatiously.” To the extent that the Leah-Lena spat contributed to expanding the proceedings, it’ll only land on T88. (Lax was looking to bolt out the back door — a mitigating factor, if anything.)

I suppose all of the plaintiffs — at least the ones who actually signed pleadings — might have had some exposure to Rule 11 sanctions for filing and then amending a frivolous lawsuit in the first place. But AFAIK they did not receive contemporaneous “safe-harbor” warnings, so that’s pretty much water over the dam. Ever since the case has been before Judge Wingate, the “multiplication” has been all T88, perhaps with a little bit of help from Fedorka, who actually signed some of the shit and stayed more-or-less joined at the hip with Orly.

- Frivolously adding plaintiffs and recklessly naming alleged co-conspirators ranging from members of the media, private web sites, elected officials, myriad public officials up to and including a Federal judge! (unnecessarily and frivolously adding to the complexity and inscrutability of the action and abusing the litigation privilege by making ungrounded scurrilous allegations)

- Vexatiously engaging in barratry and the unauthorized practice of law (replete with an unethical, unenforceable agreement to hold T88 harmless)

- Trying to block removal to Federal Court by writing legally vacuous demand letters to the judge (requiring defendants to file oppositions even though the demands were improperly brought)

- Submitting papers with unredacted social security numbers (requiring a motion to strike and an order by the magistrate judge)

- Filing at least one frivolous motion for sanctions against opposing counsel (requiring an opposition)

- Filing a frivolous and scurrilous “RICO Statement” in which new allegations not found in the complaint were raised and additional non-party “respondents” were named

- Papering the Court and opposing counsel with reams of repetitive, worthless, incompetent and untimely exhibits and daffydavits.

- Taking a groundless interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit

- Pursuing essentially the same litigation simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions (multiplicative by definition)

- Attempting to derail the Mississippi Federal Court proceedings by filing for “consolidation” of her duplicative litigation with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (a veritable case study in incompetence and frivolousness requiring, at minimum, monitoring by opposing counsel)

This is, of course, an incomplete list, but the point is: The “multiplication” is all T88. Ya think MacLeran’s going to say, “I helped write the amended complaint and reviewed it carefully before I signed it prior to filing?” Ya think Roth is going to say, “T88 never represented herself to be anything other than an equal co-plaintiff?”

To the extent a Section 1927 claim gets fully litigated, it’s all on T88.

But that’s just it: Does this judge have the energy and the time to take on T88′s cumulative, tendentious behavior as a rogue “licensed attorney”? Guess we’ll have to wait and see.

MS – Taitz v Democrat Party – Orly responds… sorta

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…

Orly replied:

“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.”

Continue reading