Press Release: US District Court in Indiana filed an Intervener Motion in federal elections challenge scheduled for bench trial on May 19, 2013

On December 18, 2012 Attorney Orly Taitz fied an intervener motion in a HAVA (Help America Vote) case, which is scheduled for bench trial on May 19, 2013.

In her motion Taitz argued that she repeatedly filed HAVA elections fraud complaints with the Secretary of State of Indiana and Elections Commission of Indiana. Initial complaint and 208 pages of exhibits was filed on February 8 2012 and was not addressed for 10 months by the Secretary of State and the Elections Commission. Taitz argued that these actions demonstrate a pattern of systematic cover up of elections fraud by the State Elections officials.

Yet more evidence that Orly realizes she is completely and utterly incompetent to initiate anything resembling a cause of action in any court, anywhere, at any time, about anything.

I did not know Judicial Watch had a HAVA case in IN. Kinda flew under the radar.

So for Larry Klansman to have filed such a bullshit lawsuit is barely more relevant than the fact that an incompetent lunatic like Orly Taitz intervened in it.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that on June 11, 2012, it filed a lawsuit (Judicial Watch, et. al v. King, et. al (1:12-cv-00800)) in partnership with True the Vote against election officials in the State of Indiana alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Specifically the lawsuit alleges that Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson and Indiana Elections Division Co-Directors J. Bradley King and Trent Deckard have failed to maintain clean voter registration lists and make records related to voter registration list maintenance available as required by Section 8 of the NVRA. (Judicial Watch's co-plaintiff, True the Vote, is a grassroots election integrity watchdog.)

[...]

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to compel Defendants' compliance with Section 8 of the NVRA. Specifically, Defendants have violated Section 8 by failing to make a reasonable effort to conduct voter list maintenance programs in elections for Federal office and by failing to produce records related to those efforts, as required by Section 8. Plaintiffs thus seek a declaration and an injunction requiring Defendants to conduct and execute voter list maintenance programs in a manner that is consistent with federal law and further requiring Defendants to produce records about its list maintenance efforts.

In 2006, the federal government sued election officials in Indiana and forced the state to take measures to comply with the voter list maintenance under the NVRA. However, the remedies enacted by the state under a consent decree proved to be temporary. Based upon Judicial Watch's analysis of publicly available data for the November 2010 general election, the number of persons listed on voter registration rolls in 12 counties in the State of Indiana exceeds 100% of the total voting-age population in those counties.

[...]

The Obama Justice Department has failed to enforce Section 8 of the NVRA in court, having last filed a lawsuit to enforce voter list maintenance requirements of the NVRA in 2007. The current DOJ is now opposing Florida's Section 8 efforts to remove non-citizens from the voting rolls.

[...]

Judicial Watch uncovered documents showing that the Obama DOJ is partnering with the ACORN-connected Project Vote, President Obama's former employer, to use the NVRA to increase voter registrations for those on public assistance, which is a key Obama voter demographic, while ignoring NVRA's Section 8 requirements for states to keep voter registration lists clean. The Justice Department has also filed lawsuits against states over voter ID laws and other measures intended to foster election integrity.

On December 10, U.S. District Court Judge William Lawrence ruled that Judicial Watch and True the Vote have standing to sue Indiana state elections officials. Those two organizations believe the Indiana voter registration rolls are not properly maintained, and that many names on the rolls should not be there. The organizations point out that in twelve counties, there are more registered voters than the census finds adult residents.

The case is Judicial Watch v King, southern district, 1:12-cv-800. The decision says the Indiana members of those organizations have standing because if their allegations are true, their Indiana members who are registered voters are being injured.

Is her attempt to intervene a new move for her or have we seen this before? I think this is new but I don't recall for certain.

I usually don't read Orly's effluvium, but I am curious to know what basis she thinks she has to intervene. I mean, what legal basis.

I usually don't read Orly's effluvium, but I am curious to know what basis she thinks she has to intervene. I mean, what legal basis.

Taitz, of course, has no idea what this case is about. The lawsuit is about the 1993 NVRA act--commonly known as the motor-voter act. It has nothing to do with HAVA, which was passed in the aftermath of the 2000 election debacle.

Unknown at this point. Her site has a link to a "Motion to intervene Judicial Watch v Elections Commission, Secretary of State" but that resolves to what she filed in Grinols.

And if the past is prologue, the election commission violated HAVA by allowing an usurper on the ballot, etc.

Taking bets that she failed to include a proposed complaint with her motion, describing specifically how Judicial Watch fails to adequately protect her interest in, um, the Indiana voter rolls.

Then there's the issue of the timeliness of her motion ...

This case appears to be premised on the allegation that Indiana has not been keeping its voter rolls up to date. Its factual base is that there are a number of counties that have more voters registered than they have voting age population (Scott, Spencer, Crawford, Warrick, Tipton,Franklin, Warren, Union, Orange, Brown, Hancock, and Newton counties - all of which Romney won). Nothing birther in it (until now).

Perhaps Orly will get the court to invalidate the presidential vote and Romney will loose 11 electoral votes. Who can tell....

The dubiously-existing "DOFF" has "members" ?

"Defend Our Freedoms" is being supported by me through my income as a doctor of dental Surgery and by my supporters