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 < email@example.com> Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 6:10 PM To firstname.lastname@example.org
Delivery to the following recipient falled permanently: email@example.com
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