Join us on R.C. Radio tonight at 9:00 p.m. Eastern.
Special Guest: Sam Begley, attorney for the Democratic Party in Orly’s Mississippi ballot challenge case. R.C. Radio has its own chat room for your use!
Related to Taitz v. Democratic Party of Mississippi et al, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. filed a complaint in May with The Mississippi Bar, against Defense co-counsels Samuel Begley and Scott J. Tepper of Los Angeles, citing “moral turpitude, uttering of forged documents with an intent to defraud the court and with an intent to defraud the public.”
The Mississippi Bar has thrown it out with no possibility of appeal. The complaint is “deemed expunged and not considered a charge touching upon the conduct of the attorney.”
By A Legal Lohengrin for The Fogbow
I arrived about 10 minutes late and missed the preliminaries of the dumbest legal proceeding I have ever attended.
The first items on the agenda were a Motion to Dismiss (which we have seen) and another motion, which I believe was described as a Motion to Vacate Trial and Dismiss Jurisdiction.
DAG Joel was first chair this time and aggressively pursued clients interests. He started with the procedural history, which is convoluted enough and already known enough I won’t recount it here again. Only Jefferson Garn was present as second chair, and assisted during the hearing with citations and other legal research, but did not argue directly to the court.
Judge Reid stated at the outset, at around 10:10 a.m., that both sides would be allowed approximately an hour to present their cases. Both the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Vacate were direct challenges to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case.
Among other arguments were that the “permanent injunction” claim was not a cause of action but a remedy, and one to which the plaintiffs are not entitled. As for the request for declaratory judgment, Joel noted the utter absence of any reference to the Declaratory Judgment Act. Therefore, there was no real need to have a trial on anything.
At about 10:17, Orly argued that this was now about the general election and not the primary election (despite there being no operative pleading whatsoever even mentioning the general election). She once again complained that the IEC did not hear the plaintiffs’ new complaint to the general election, cited the Election Board v. Bayh case for the proposition that she could just ignore the rules and immediately bring any kind of election challenge without exhausting (which the case does not say) and complaint that nobody has heard her HAVA claims (which is a federal statute that creates no private cause of action). She cited a number of statutes including IC 3-18-1-16, 3-5-7-4. Orly also again cited the Fulani case. Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1991), though she got the year wrong as 1990. It was heard in 1990 but decided in 1991.
Joel countered with a number of arguments, including that Fulani concerned the standing of a candidate on the ballot to challenge the eligibility of another candidate, a distinction Orly has been pathologically incapable of understanding. Joel also pointed out that no challenge has been made to the general election results in any of the operative pleadings. Further I.C. 3-8-1-2(d)(3) points out there is no need for the Election Commission to have a hearing when the “challenge would be based on substantially the same grounds as the previous challenge to the candidate.” In other words, they already lost on the eligibility argument.
Judge Reid wonders whether Joel is arguing as to the Motion to Dismiss or the Motion to Vacate. Joel points out there is necessary certain overlap, that he has much more argument related to the Motion to Dismiss, but that he is currently arguing the Motion to Vacate. Judge Reid gives Orly the last word on the Motion to Vacate issue. Orly starts whining that she has gone to “enormous expense” to create this mess, whines again about poor Strunk in esse, then proceeds to complain that the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the day before Judge Reid’s order to expand time gave them.
Joel starts moving into the Motion to Dismiss
Joel also notes, again, the numerous flagrant rules violations and pleading deficiencies of plaintiffs and the Moldovan Madwoman, noting that at the last hearing, Judge Reid had stated that further rules violations would be subject to dismissal. Joel then notes that despite that, virtually every pleading filed since then has been in violation of the rules. In fact, the Second Amended Complaint, in which plaintiffs were permitted only to allege three common law torts, added new causes of action, a plaintiff the court had specifically denied leave to intervene, and defendants.
Joel asks at one point: “How many times must they [the plaintiffs] flout the rules of this court before this case is put to rest?”
TRUTH TEST: ‘Dreams from My Real Father’
KUSA – A highly-charged political DVD has started showing up in mailboxes across Colorado. It’s a film that makes claims about President Obama’s family background called “Dreams from My Real Father.”
The film’s director claims 700,000 Colorado households have received this DVD in the mail. The exact number of copies distributed in Colorado cannot be independently confirmed. …
Gilbert has also never said where he’s getting the money to send more than four million copies to voters in swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Colorado.
The Phoenix New Times gets an earful from the Deputy Sheriff of the Cold Cuts Posse:
Joe Arpaio’s “Birther” Chief Mike Zullo Strikes Back at Orly Taitz, Says He Doesn’t Want “Circus Show” Involved …
Zullo says Taitz was one of the first people the Cold Case Posse contacted when Arpaio gave the go-ahead to start looking at Obama’s birth certificate and other documents, and adds that it “wasn’t a favorable contact.”
“We don’t want our information tainted by a circus show,” Zullo says.
Taitz hasn’t exactly been successful in her multiple court challenges to Obama’s eligibility, and Zullo noted Taitz’s propensity to make procedural errors in her cases.
Zullo says he and Arpaio “don’t want the integrity of our investigation pulled through this,” which sent the readings on our irony meter off the chart.
“Regardless of what ‘Dr. Conspiracy’ says, we know we’ve got something here,” Zullo says, referencing the man who’s been following/debunking “birther” theories for quite some time.
If you missed yesterday’s knock down, drag out over the Indiana Ballot Challenge hearing scheduled for Monday, between Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. and Zullo’s Colorado pal John Sampson, listen here. Really. But who the hell is Arpaio’s dancing bear trying to kid?
For some reason Part 1 of last night’s interview doesn’t want to embed properly. I will add it later, if I find a better code, but it can be watched at Comedy Central.
|The Daily Show with Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Exclusive – Barack Obama Extended Interview Pt. 2|