In Part 1-3, we described Orly’s struggles to get the case properly set in motion. Finally, the Judge issues an order for a hearing.
On March 26, 2012, Judge Coleman issues an order setting a hearing for April 16, 2012
On or around March 27, 2012, Orly sends a letter to Zullo and to Arpaio, claiming that this is a notice to appear as a witness at the April 16, 2012 hearing. Orly makes no attempt to get the court to issue an order or properly file the required documents that could have been used. So, it should not come as a surprise that neither one showed any interests.
On March 30, 2012, the Democratic Party of MS submits an application for admission of counsel pro hac vice for Scott J. Tepper. Mr Tepper is well versed in Orly’s methods and arguments. It’s fascinating to see Mr Begley understands how to properly file for an admission Pro Hac Vice.
In a later motion, the SOS of MS explains the next follies of Orly. Having been unable to stop the primary election, Orly sent an email to Sam Begley in her attempt to initiate a general election challenge under 23-12-963 but fails to file the petition with the Mississippi Democratic Party.
After the presidential preference primary took place, Taitz shifted her focus to the 2012 Mississippi general election. On April 1, 2012, Taitz sent an email to Sam Begley, attorney for the Mississippi Democratic Party, attempting to initiate a general election challenge petition under Mississippi Code Section 23-15-963(1). [See April 1, 2012 Email correspondence, affixed hereto as Exhibit “B”; First Amended Complaint at p. 15, Exhibit “A” to Docket No. 1]. Taitz never actually filed that April 1, 2012 “petition” with the Mississippi Democratic Party.
On or about April 14, 2012, Taitz served the Secretary of State and the Mississippi Democratic Party with a First Amended Complaint by mail.
But things get worse
Nevertheless, even assuming that Taitz’s April 1, 2012 email constituted a proper petition under Section 23-15-963(1), the plaintiffs’ lawsuit is still untimely. After the April 1, 2012 email, the Mississippi Democratic Party had ten days to rule on the petition. See Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-963(2). Since no ruling was ever made, the petition was deemed denied as of April 11, 2012. See Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-963(3).
Meanwhile, and more importantly, Taitz (and/or her co-Plaintiffs) had to file a petition for judicial review with the Hinds County Circuit Court and pay a cost bond within fifteen days of the original April 1, 2012 petition to the Mississippi Democratic Party. Miss. Code Ann. § 23- 15-963(4). The only document that could possibly be considered such a filing is Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint was not filed until April 19, 2012 and was unaccompanied by the required bond. Plaintiffs were required to file a Circuit Court petition no later than April 15, 2012. They failed to do so.5 Their general election claim is thus barred and no court has jurisdiction to decide plaintiffs’ general election-based claims.
On April 2, 2012, James Hendrix files a request to be allowed to video tape the proceedings. Orly is very excited with the ‘media coverage’, something she may have regretted later.
Read more about James “Jimmy” ‘Kingfish’ Hendrix running for Judge in 2011 for Hind’s county.
On April 5, 2012, Judge Coleman issues an order allowing Mr Tepper to appear Pro Hac Vice.
The stage is set.
On April 13, the MS Democratic Party files an answer and affirmative defenses
On April 13, the court cancels the April 16 hearing for personal reasons.
And on April 18, Orly files an emergency petition for a subpoena for production of documents by two California movie makers… I kid you not…
But things will not go Orly’s way…
Orly also filed a motion for interlocutory appeal with the Supreme Court of Mississippi on April 19, 2012, asking the court to appoint the case to another judge. Judge Coleman responds by canceling the May 7 hearing and recuses himself… Poor Orly.
On April 25, Orly sends a letter to the Supreme Court of Mississippi, ‘arguing’ that the case has been removed illegally (Orly is not very familiar with the removal proceedings as she claims that she never consented, that the case was illegally removed but rather than provide a well argued letter, she uses rhetoric, and of course, the court is not very impressed.
On May 4, 2012, the Supreme Court files an order that since the case has been removed to Federal Court, the state case will be held in abeyance. Poor Orly…