MS – Taitz v Democrat Party – Explaining Begley

Orly Taitz has posted an email she received from Sam Begley, the lawyer for the Mississippi Democratic Party who was joined by Michael Tepper to oppose Orly’s filings.

Dear Ms. Taitz In response to your letter to me dated October 11, 2012 and e-mailed today, your claims are preposterous (1), your evidence non-existent (2), any evidence of a fraud exists only in your own mind (3), and (as we wrote in our motion for judgment on the pleadings) ignoring you does not constitute a RICO violation (4). Also, under Mississippi law your current ridiculous claims are time barred (5) and as an out of state resident you have no standing to bring them (6). If I have not made it clear in the past, go away.

The short but to the point email was further elaborated in the Motion for Judgement on the Proceedings

Time Barred (5)

1. The Plaintiffs’ challenge to President Obama’s running as a candidate in the Mississippi Democratic Preference Primary is time barred under Miss. Code Ann.§ 23-15-961 because Plaintiff Orly Taitz failed to lodge her petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court of Hinds County in a timely manner and, additionally, Plaintiffs Fedorka, Roth, Lax and MacLeran have failed to first file a petition withthe MDEC setting forth a challenge to President Obama’s qualifications. Moreover, such challenge is now a moot question, depriving the Court of jurisdiction, as the March 13, 2012 presidential preference primary election has already occurred.

Time Barred (5)

2. The Plaintiffs’ challenge to President Obama’s appearing on the November 2012 general election ballot in Mississippi is time barred under  Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-963 because the Plaintiffs failed to lodge their election contest petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court of Hinds County in a timely manner and, moreover, none of the Plaintiffs filed an election contest petition with the MDEC, or with any other election officials, and did not post a $300.00 cost bond with two sureties, as required by each statute. Additionally, the Plaintiffs’ challenge to President Obama appearing on the November 2012 general election ballot is barred by the doctrine of ripeness because President Obama has not yet been selected as the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States.

Lack of Standing3. None of the Plaintiffs are “aggrieved parties” under either Section 23-15-961 or Section 23-15-963.In particular, Plaintiffs Taitz, Roth, Lax and MacLeran are not qualified electors of the State of Mississippi. Further, Plaintiffs Fedorka, Roth, Lax and MacLeran are not “aggrieved” by any decision of the MDEC, in that they never first filed an election contest petition with the MDEC.Inappropriate4. Sections 23-15-961 and 23-15-963 are inapplicable to candidates for President qualifying to run inMississippi.

5 Section 23-15-963 only applies to independent candidates, and President Obama is a political party candidate.

Lack of Standing

6. None of the Plaintiffs have standing to bring this suit, because none of them are any different than any other citizen or voter of the United States and thus have suffered no discrete injury required to satisfy the respective standing doctrines established under Mississippi and federal jurisprudence.

No statutory duty

7. The MDEC has no statutory duty under  Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-1089 and  Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-781 et seq. to determine the qualifications of any candidate running in the March 2012 presidential preference primary or running as the Democratic nominee for President, selected this  summer by the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, to be placed on the 2012 general election ballot in Mississippi.

8. Mississippi election officials, including the MDEC, have no jurisdiction over the qualifications of candidates for President of the United States since federal constitutional and statutory laws set forth the exclusive procedure by which objections to the qualifications of a presidential candidate may ber egistered and resolved.

9. The Plaintiffs’ legal claims purporting to expand the constitutional requirements beyond those requiring that the President be a “natural born citizen” fail as a matter of law since there is no constitutional or legal requirement to justify the Plaintiffs’ demands that President Obama show them “identification papers” satisfactory to them.

Preposterous (1)

10. Any contention that Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen” because his father was not a citizen when President Obama was born is without merit since it is well settled that a person born in theUnited States is considered a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of his parents.

Preposterous (1)

11. The Plaintiffs’ claim that President Obama is ineligible because of purportedly “invalid” “identification papers” is frivolous. The Plaintiffs have failed to even claim , or provide any factual allegations to support such a claim, that President Obama was not born in the United States.Moreover, the Court should take judicial notice of the fact that the State of Hawaii has fully verified that President Obama was born in Hawaii, as evidenced by the Hawaii Department of Health press release dated July 27, 2009, in which the Director states that he has seen the original vital records maintained on President Obama, confirming that he was born in Hawaii as a natural born citizen, and the press release dated April 27, 2011, in which the Director stated that she had seen the original birth records of President Obama, and thus attested to the authenticity of the certified copies of the long form birth certificate the Department provided to the President, that further proves the fact thatPresident Obama was born in Hawaii.

ignoring you does not constitute a RICO violation (4)

evidence of a fraud exists only in your own mind (3)

12. The Plaintiffs’ RICO action should be dismissed against the MDEC and all other defendants because they have alleged no allegations of fraud with reasonable particularity. Moreover, there are no allegations that the MDEC acted in concert with anyone, conspired with anyone, or did anything that would constitute a pattern of racketeering activity. Rather, the only allegation on which the Plaintiffsbase their RICO claim against the MDEC is that it ignored Plaintiff  Taitz’s preposterous claims about the President. The RICO claim is further barred because no Plaintiff has alleged any injury to his or her business or property, but only injury to their purported political rights, which is not sufficient under RICO. Finally, the Plaintiffs have failed to plead an “enterprise” and have failed to plead that the Defendants “conducted” an enterprise as required for a RICO claim; nor does the complaint allege that any of the Defendants “conducted the affairs” of any enterprise.

13. Arguments and authorities in support of this Motion are set forth in the MDEC’s Memorandum Brief being filed today and through the Exhibits relating to the Hawaii birth certificate matter attached to this Motion.

Hope this help clarify Sam Begley’s email.