Mississippi Ballot Challenge (ACT I & I.5) :)

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4221

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Hmmm, seems to be missing something. :-k

So, this may not shatter the earth after all? :-k

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:02 pm

Very interesting Doe defendant:

Quote:

Defendants John Does and Jane Does who are yet to be identified, retaliated against Plaintiffs and particularly plaintiffTaitz in a following manner...

3. Subsidizing and running websites, where Plaintiffs and particularly Taitz were defamed, humiliated, harassed and intimidated.

Further affiant sayeth naught.

borealis · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:03 pm

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Hmmm, seems to be missing something. :-k

Oh yeah.

The identity of each defendant and the alleged misconduct and basis for liability for each defendant;

A list of all alleged wrongdoers who are not defendants, and the misconduct of each wrongdoer;

A list of all alleged victims and how each was allegedly injured;

A list of all the predicate acts being relied on;

All dates, participants, and other surrounding facts for each predicate act;

The time, place, and contents of the representations for wire and mail fraud claims, and an explanation of how they form a pattern of racketeering activity;

A description of the alleged RICO enterprise in detail, with names of all individuals, corporations, and partnerships that comprise it;

A description of the structure, purpose, nature, and course of conduct of the enterprise.

Like that RICO suit worked so well for Berg's Rodriguez v. Bush.

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4221

Quote:

Defendants John Does and Jane Does who are yet to be identified, retaliated against Plaintiffs and particularly plaintiffTaitz in a following manner...

3. Subsidizing and running websites, where Plaintiffs and particularly Taitz were defamed, humiliated, harassed and intimidated.

YOU'RE A PUBLIC FIGURE, BITCH!
:twoup:

1st Amendment. Look it up, Senatorial Candidate Thai-Eats.

borealis · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:24 pm

neonzx wrote:

Quote:

Defendants John Does and Jane Does who are yet to be identified, retaliated against Plaintiffs and particularly plaintiffTaitz in a following manner...

3. Subsidizing and running websites, where Plaintiffs and particularly Taitz were defamed, humiliated, harassed and intimidated.

YOU'RE A PUBLIC FIGURE, BITCH!
:twoup:

1st Amendment. Look it up, Senatorial Candidate Thai-Eats.

It so funny she does exactly that to private people, tries to intimidate witnesses into giving perjured testimony per Lincoln III , outright steals personal information, yet she's gonna sue the JDs under RICO. She must be scared to death of her upcoming court smackdown in MS.

raicha · **Posted:** Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:05 am

Orly Taitz wrote:

What is good about an answer versus motion to dismiss, it that it shows that the complaint has merit and parties go into discovery.

I might be wrong, but I believe this is the first time that the Secretary of State and Democratic party file actual answers. I will be preparing subpoenas for deposition and production of documents. One wild guess, who is number#1 on my list for subpoenas for deposition and production of documents???

What a moron. If the complaint is dismissed on the basis of the Democratic Party's motion, it is dismissed completely. And of course, an answer does not show that a complaint has merit. An answer denies that a complaint has merit and litigation continues.

She is so happy now that the "parties go into discovery". Yup, that will go well. She is the petitioner and the defendants are entitled to take discovery from her regarding her "facts". Including her production of the documents illegally obtained by Hollister and Jordan. Then there is a motion to examine her regarding her barratry. My wild guess for number#1 on the list? Orly Taitz herself.

What a moron.

hitch · **Joined:** Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:52 pm **Posts:** 601

Don't you need permission to add plaintiffs to the suit? She added:

Quote:

2. Brian Fedorka- citizen of the state of Mississippi and a registered legal voter in Mississippi.
3. Leah Lax- a Democrat running for the U.S. presidency, registered with the FEC as a Presidential candidate
3. Laurie Roth- a Presidential candidate from American Independent party, registered with the FEC
4. Tom Maclaren,- a Presidential candidate from Republican party,registered with the FEC

My favorite section regarding why an injunction should be granted:

Quote:

c. BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS POINTS TO A NEED FOR INJLNCTIVE RELIEF
In balancing the hardships between the Plaintiffs and defendants, the Plaintiffs rights would outweigh the defendants' rights, as there is a deprivation of the basic civil rights to have a lawful election. Plaintiff Taitz received multiple death threats from Obama supporters who do not believe that their "messiah" is capable of committing elections fraud and is using forged documents. Unless the injunction is issued and the public is apprised of the evidence of the elections fraud and forgery by Obama, such death threats will continue until one of Obama's supporters will succeed in making his threat a reality. Balancing the hardships points to the need ofinjunction.

raicha · **Posted:** Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:41 am

hitch wrote:

Don't you need permission to add plaintiffs to the suit? She added:

You sure do when you are not acting as an attorney. Taitz is a petitioner, in pro se. She has no right to file an unsigned petition for any other party.

Tomtech · **Posted:** Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:01 am

raicha wrote:

hitch wrote:

Don't you need permission to add plaintiffs to the suit? She added:

You sure do when you are not acting as an attorney. Taitz is a petitioner, in pro se. She has no right to file an unsigned petition for any other party.

This looks like a job for The Teppernator. Can he get Practicing Law Without a License added to the sanctions, or refer this to local prosecutors?

Foggy · **Posted:** Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:02 am

When did Chito Papa officially change his name to Felicito, do we have proof of that? :-?

Who IS this man?

And my buddy Rico Ricardo asks, how much are treble damages when the actual damage is ZeeRoh?

kreisman · **Joined:** Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:01 pm **Posts:** 305

And now for some law:

Rule 15, Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that leave of court or consent of the parties must be obtained before an amended complaint can be filed once the defendant has filed a responsive pleading (an answer) or the case has been on a trial calendar. An answer has been filed and the case has been on a trial calendar. Correct me if I am wrong here, but Orly did not get leave of court or consent of the parties.

But rules are for the common people not Orly.

It is scavenger hunt time: How many paragraph "1"s can you find in the amended complain. No reward; just the satisfaction of completing a difficult task.

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4221

kreisman wrote:

And now for some law:

Rule 15, Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that leave of court or consent of the parties must be obtained before an amended complaint can be filed once the defendant has filed a responsive pleading (an answer) or the case has been on a trial calendar. An answer has been filed and the case has been on a trial calendar. Correct me if I am wrong here, but Orly did not get leave of court or consent of the parties.

But rules are for the common people not Orly.

But the judge is ill and can't respond to requests; that grants automatic de facto leave. Don't you know nuthin'? [-(

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6731

neonzx wrote:

But the judge is ill and can't respond to requests; that grants automatic de facto leave. Don't you know nuthin'? [-(

I think she would have done this anyway. It's what she did in Hawaii - Filed an amended pile of poo right before the hearing then walked into the hearing wanting to argue the amended pile of poo. It would be fun to have someone finally ask her in court to explain how Jordan and Hollister illegally used the E-Verify and Selective Service systems.

mimi · **Posted:** Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:51 am

Is this on the docket yet? Are we sure she actually filed it yet? Or was she waiting for Fogbow to point out some stuff?

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Sat Apr 14, 2012 8:32 am

raicha wrote:

She is so happy now that the "parties go into discovery". Yup, that will go well. She is the petitioner and the defendants are entitled to take discovery from her regarding her "facts". Including her production of the documents illegally obtained by Hollister and Jordan. Then there is a motion to examine her regarding her barratry. My wild guess for number#1 on the list? Orly Taitz herself.

And the lovely thing about it is, the defendants can set the deposition for a location in Mississippi. When a plaintiff chooses the venue in which to litigate, the plaintiff has submitted to jurisdiction there and must make herself available in that venue for deposition.

Same goes for Leah Laxative, Pissed Off Vet and Laurie "The Shrink" Roth. Schedule their depositions back-to-back. Maybe they can get a group rate at the Budget Inn on I-55.

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4221

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=35600#comments :twisted:

Quote:

Freda B. Tepper
April 14th, 2012 @ 6:27 am

A masterpiece. You’ve truly outdone yourself this time.

Don’t forget each side gets discovery. Begley and Tepper can’t wait to depose you.

orly taitz
April 14th, 2012 @ 7:42 am

be my guest Mr. Tepper
I have nothing to hide. Besides, there is absolutely nothing that is relevant to elections fraud committed by Obama, that you can ask me. If you decided to go into fishing expeditions about my granny’s date of birth, or something like this, it will be disallowed as harassment.
You are the one, who has something to fear. More so your financier. Please, send him my regards and check, when is he available for depositions, unless he is willing to settle the case and look for another puppet

Adelante · **Posted:** Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:55 am

Oh, dear

Piffle · **Posted:** Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:07 pm

Foggy wrote:

And my buddy Rico Ricardo asks, how much are treble damages when the actual damage is ZeeRoh?

Heh, it depends upon the outcome of the sanctions phase. I think it's only fitting that a litigant bringing a frivolous claim for treble damages should be subject to treble attorneys' fees and expenses.

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2233

From her RICO motion:

Quote:

Obama committed mail and wire fraud when in and around January 25th, 2012 he, through his attorney Michael Jablonski sent by mail, fax, and email a defamatory letter to the Secretary of State of Georgia, where he attacked Plaintiff Taitz, who was attorney in Farrar v Obama claiming that he had produced a birth certificate and that he suffers from Taitz.

Obama claimed that he suffered from Taitz? :-?

That's gotta hurt...

SueDB · **Posted:** Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:09 pm

AnitaMaria wrote:

From her RICO motion:

Quote:

Obama committed mail and wire fraud when in and around January 25th, 2012 he, through his attorney Michael Jablonski sent by mail, fax, and email a defamatory letter to the Secretary of State of Georgia, where he attacked Plaintiff Taitz, who was attorney in Farrar v Obama claiming that he had produced a birth certificate and that he suffers from Taitz.

Obama claimed that he suffered from Taitz? :-?

That's gotta hurt...

It depends what else is in your Yahoo.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:11 pm

SueDB wrote:

Obama claimed that he suffered from Taitz? :-?

That's gotta hurt...

I have heard that they itch like hell. :lol:

Piffle · **Posted:** Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:12 pm

neonzx (quoting Orly) wrote:

orly taitz
April 14th, 2012 @ 7:42 am

be my guest Mr. Tepper
I have nothing to hide. Besides, there is absolutely nothing that is relevant to elections fraud committed by Obama, that you can ask me. If you decided to go into fishing expeditions about my granny’s date of birth, or something like this, it will be disallowed as harassment.

Uh huh. For someone who has signed as many verified pleadings and personal affidavits as Orly has, this is a rather remarkable contention. Oh, and didn't she sling her own highly certified testimony from Georgia into the mix?

I kinda think the Begmeister and the Tepperator will be able to come up with plenty of relevant questions before they need to delve into anything having to do with Orly's granny.