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

Chilidog · **Joined:** Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:36 pm **Posts:** 1964

DISCOVERY !!!!!!

or maybe not. . . .

Paul Lentz · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:26 pm

Oily wrote:

the court of appeals is the 5th circuit in TX

Yeah, I know we don't want to "help" Oily, but I also don't want any of her tiny band of flying monkeys (or even her fellow-birfer detractors) who read here religiously to be fooled for one minute, imagining that this frowzy fool knows anything about what she's talking about...

That said, the last time I looked, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was located in New Orleans (John Minor Wisdom United States Court of Appeals Building), and has been for, well, years**. Or did they relocate it overnight and just forget to tell those of us with pending business there? That would be very naughty. [-X

**About 97 years, to be exact. Now, to be sure, during a brief period of time (as I recall, it was less than 3 months) following damage to the John Minor Wisdom Building caused by Hurricane Katrina, the 5th Circuit moved its base of operations to various buildings throughout the circuit, but that's been what...7 years ago? And to be fair, a couple of times a year, a limited number of 5th Circuit appeal oral arguments are heard in the U.S. Courthouses or Federal Building courtrooms in Fort Worth and Houston. But a case such as this one, originating out of Mississippi, would not be administered out of, nor heard in, Texas.

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3495

When counsel for the defendants simply answers with "denied," is this because the corresponding accusation was so without merit & evidence that it becomes essentially "he said/she said," burden on the accuser?

Mr. Gneiss · **Joined:** Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:37 am **Posts:** 565

Well, except for misspelling "Defendant" as "Defenant" four times, it reads nothing like an Orly pleading!!

Maybe one of Orly's "co-plaintiffs" will forward their email to her. That way Orly can spend the weekend preparing her subpoenas, instead of having to wait for the mail to arrive sometime next week.

Finally, she has DISCOVERY!!!! =))

tjh · **Joined:** Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm **Posts:** 2474

nbc wrote:

tjh wrote:

I thunk everything stopped when it was removed to Federal court. No?

Filed in the Unites States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, not the State Court.

Ah, thanks. I wasn't sure if the parties just kept filing on the old complaint, or if everything was on hold until some kind official restart.

(Edit -- added quote for context)

ObjectiveDoubter · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:29 pm

Chilidog wrote:

DISCOVERY !!!!!!

or maybe not. . . .

my favorite part -- because there always is at least one really dopier than dopey thing -- Orly says, "...so we are in discovery." Who the hell is WE? Do any of her fellow plaintiffs even have a clue what she is up to? When she is sanctioned, and this time I think it might actually happen as this is so grandiose in its audacity, will they be on the hook too? Or is the WE less literal, more editorial license because she believes there are so, so many people standing behind her in this altruistic, patriotic effort? Yikes, she is a delusional mess!

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3495

ObjectiveDoubter wrote:

When she is sanctioned, and this time I think it might actually happen as this is so grandiose in its audacity, will they be on the hook too? Or is the WE less literal, more editorial license because she believes there are so, so many people standing behind her in this altruistic, patriotic effort?

I do hope the hammer comes down hard on Orly. Not a new wish for me.

And I think all the co-conspirators should also, too be dealt with just as harshly (if it's determined that they indeed knew they were co-plaintiffs), because they all know their case is a frivolous fabrication.

Foggy · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:03 pm

DaveMuckey wrote:

Oatzie wrote:

The AG is saying that RICO is the Federal statute. It is interesting that he did not have a problem with federal statute when the original complaint referred to Article 2 of the Constitution, which as you know id a federal law. He jumped when RICO was filed. It is also interesting that an eligibility case was sitting in TN for half a year since November. Nobody rushed the case. Suddenly, as I filed the RICO causes of action, the presiding judge in TN denied a motion by the attorney on that case to remand the case to the state court, saying that eligibility is an important federal question and he wants to hear it.

Is the purported RICO action the reason these two cases seem to be going in different directions, aside from the delaying tactics of the plaintiffs?

From whose perspective? Maybe the Attorney General thinks that, who knows? It looks like the Attorney General is trying to HELP her get that FAC to be the operative complaint, even though she had no leave to file it. Instead of saying she had no right to file it, the AG is acting as if it was filed properly. I don't see the strategy, except to keep it in Federal Court and jerk her chain because she has no idea how to prosecute a RICO claim ... hell, she can't even make the distinction between civil and criminal RICO.

But Orly is thinking that RICO is suddenly the magic bullet, and she sees evidence of that where no one else would.

What she's saying there is, the AG didn't remove the case when it was just a plain ol' violation of the Constitution. But when she filed RICO, "he jumped". Meaning she struck a nerve there. And the judge in Von Aryan's case in Tennessee panicked too. He suddenly denied the motion to remand that he'd been sitting on.

Now, a normal lawyer would look at the very well written 12 page order in that case and maybe think he had spent his time working on the decision instead of stalling it and then panicking due to Orly's actions in another case in another court in another state based on entirely different allegations. But not Orly. She thinks she spooked BOAF the Mississippi AG and the Tennessee judge. She's just that important.

... and since RICO scares the shit out of everybody, she also decided to threaten people in California with it. That's what the letter to Bowen et al. was all about.

Piffle · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:19 pm

jtmunkus wrote:

When counsel for the defendants simply answers with "denied," is this because the corresponding accusation was so without merit & evidence that it becomes essentially "he said/she said," burden on the accuser?

The simple answers admitted or denied are quite usual. It's a matter of the practitioner's style whether the words are stated tersely or put in slightly expanded sentences. Either way, it isn't the time to engage in polemics or argument, nor is it the time introduce or refute evidence.

From observing Orlylaw suits alone, it's difficult to discern that there's an underlying logic and purpose to the way civil procedure is structured. In theory, the steps of the litigation process are supposed to narrow the issues down to those elements and facts that are contested and need to be tried versus those about which there is no actual disagreement.

The answer is the first step in this process of winnowing and clarifying. Each averment in the complaint that is admitted is supposed have the effect of simplifying and reducing the complexity of the suit. At the same time, the answer lists, broadly, the affirmative defenses the respondent intends to pursue. (In actual fact, it's usually a list of defenses they reserve the right to pursue.j While affirmative defenses may not simplify anything per se, they are supposed to help define the scope of the suit.

The various tools of discovery are also designed to aid in the general process of refining the facts, claims and evidence but I think it's wiser not to go down this road at the moment. Orly knows squat about discovery so let's just let her slog through it.

nbc · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am **Posts:** 2530

Foggy wrote:

From whose perspective? Maybe the Attorney General thinks that, who knows? It looks like the Attorney General is trying to HELP her get that FAC to be the operative complaint, even though she had no leave to file it. Instead of saying she had no right to file it, the AG is acting as if it was filed properly. I don't see the strategy, except to keep it in Federal Court and jerk her chain because she has no idea how to prosecute a RICO claim ... hell, she can't even make the distinction between civil and criminal RICO.

But Orly is thinking that RICO is suddenly the magic bullet, and she sees evidence of that where no one else would.

Well, RICO is her last resort at this moment and she really believes that 1) she can correctly file a RICO complaint 2) she can successfully pursue such a complaint.
Orly had original filed a petition that allowed her access to the Courts under a MS Statute that allows one to challenge a primary candidate. But rather than let the issue come to a hearing, she decided to amend her complaint and file a weird combination of a RICO complaint as well as a claim under a MS statute that allows one to challenge a general election candidate.

Of course, in filing the amended complaint she failed to ask for leave of court as the document was filed after the defendants had responded, and she failed to properly file the petition under MS statute.
Quite a mess, as she is still, as far as I understand, involved in an administrative hearing to resolve an election dispute but somehow moved to file a complaint which is not relevant to the election statute.

Her case is one of judicial review of an administrative hearing. Nothing more...

Foggy · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:47 pm

I disagree, nbc. Now this case is in federal court. She added the RICO claim, and the Attorney General of Mississippi answered it. I don't think the federal judge is going to feel limited to conducting an administrative law hearing on the original complaint. And it can't be judicial review of an administrative hearing, because there hasn't been any administrative hearing yet.

Could be wrong about that, but I think we've got a whole new ballgame.

Piffle · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:57 pm

Foggy wrote:

I disagree, nbc. Now this case is in federal court. She added the RICO claim, and the Attorney General of Mississippi answered it. I don't think the federal judge is going to feel limited to conducting an administrative law hearing on the original complaint. And it can't be judicial review of an administrative hearing, because there hasn't been any administrative hearing yet.

^^^^ This. It's always been an election challenge (before the attempt to transmute it into some sort of an omnibus suit) and it's never been predicated on finding error in an administrative proceeding.

Head north-by-northeast until you reach the State of Indiana. Then repost.

nbc · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am **Posts:** 2530

Foggy wrote:

I disagree, nbc. Now this case is in federal court. She added the RICO claim, and the Attorney General of Mississippi answered it. I don't think the federal judge is going to feel limited to conducting an administrative law hearing on the original complaint. And it can't be judicial review of an administrative hearing, because there hasn't been any administrative hearing yet.

Could be wrong about that, but I think we've got a whole new ballgame.

I agree that the removal to Federal Court based on her amended complaint has opened up a new ballgame although I am surprised that she could file such a complaint when her original case was one for judicial review of an administrative hearing (that never took place) in which the Democrat Party ignored Orly's petition.

The whole development has become somewhat confusing, and I look forward to the Federal Judge unraveling it all...

borealis · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:05 pm

Foggy wrote:

I disagree, nbc. Now this case is in federal court. She added the RICO claim, and the Attorney General of Mississippi answered it. I don't think the federal judge is going to feel limited to conducting an administrative law hearing on the original complaint. And it can't be judicial review of an administrative hearing, because there hasn't been any administrative hearing yet.

Could be wrong about that, but I think we've got a whole new ballgame.

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

BillTheCat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1428

I'm kinda wondering why they haven't responded with a FOAD to her beligerant letter from the other day. Are they just going to ignore it?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23532

Updating Docket and new pleadings....

Quote:

Taitz et al v. Democrat Party of Mississippi et al
Assigned to: District Judge Henry T. Wingate
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson

Case in other court:
Circuit Court of Hinds County, Ms, 251-12-00107 CIV

Cause: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

Date Filed: 04/24/2012
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

04/24/2012 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Secretary of State of Mississippi from Circuit Court of Hinds County, Ms, case number 251-12-107 CIV. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 34643015410)

Pursuant to Rule L.U.Civ.R. 5(b): within 14 days removing party must electronically file the entire state court record as a single filing; and all parties shall, within fourteen days after the Case Management Conference, file as separate docket items any unresolved motions that were filed in state court which they wish to advance. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - First Amended Complaint, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(ND) (Entered: 04/25/2012)

04/25/2012 2 RICO Notice - The Plaintiffs shall file within twenty (20) days a RICO case statement. This statement shall include the facts the Plaintiff is relying upon to initiate this RICO complaint as a result of the "reasonable inquiry" required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (ND) (Entered: 04/25/2012)

04/25/2012 3 ANSWER to Complaint (First Amended Complaint) by Secretary of State of Mississippi.(Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 04/25/2012)

04/25/2012 4 Joinder in Document by Democrat Party of Mississippi to 1 Notice of Removal,, filed by Secretary of State of Mississippi (Begley, Samuel) (Entered: 04/25/2012)

04/27/2012 5 ANSWER to Complaint (First Amended Complaint) by Democrat Party of Mississippi.(Begley, Samuel) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/27/2012 6 State Court Record by Defendant Secretary of State of Mississippi Volumes 20 (Attachments: # 1 Circuit Court Record Vol. 2, # 2 Circuit Court Record Vol.3, # 3 Circuit Court Record Vol. 4, # 4 Circuit Court Record Vol. 5, # 5 Circuit Court Record Vol. 6, # 6 Circuit Court Record Vol. 7, # 7 Circuit Court Record Vol. 8, # 8 Circuit Court Record Vol. 9, # 9 Circuit Court Record Vol. 10, # 10 Circuit Court Record Vol. 11, # 11 Circuit Court Record Vol. 12, # 12 Circuit Court Record Vol. 13, # 13 Circuit Court Record Vol. 14, # 14 Circuit Court Record Vol. 15, # 15 Circuit Court Record Vol. 16, # 16 Circuit Court Record Vol. 17, # 17 Circuit Court Record Vol. 18, # 18 Circuit Court Record Vol. 19, # 19 Circuit Court Record Vol. 20)(Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/27/2012 7 State Court Record by Defendant Secretary of State of Mississippi Volumes 5 (Supreme Court) (Attachments: # 1 Supreme Court Record Vol. 2, # 2 Supreme Court Record Vol.3, # 3 Supreme Court Record Vol. 4, # 4 Supreme Court Record Vol. 5)(Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/27/2012 8 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Secretary of State of Mississippi (Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/27/2012 9 MEMORANDUM in Support re 8 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Secretary of State of Mississippi (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - A list of more than 100 known lawsuits challenging or related to President Obamas eligibility to be President, including approximately 50 rejected by federal courts, # 2 Exhibit B - April 1, 2012 Email correspondence)(Matheny, Justin) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

links to 8 and 9 shortly

Foggy · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:21 pm

... and it looks to me like she scrubbed or bumped down a lot of the posts about this case on her blog after receiving those ...

None of my comments are getting through moderation, but you can do a big smiley face by typing :D on her blog, and a "cool" smiley by posting 8).

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23532

hehe

Quote:

In Keyes v. Bowen, 189 Cal.App.4th 647 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 2010), a case in
which Plaintiff Taitz participated, and lost, the court affirmed the dismissal of a mandamus action against the California Secretary of State seeking to remove then candidate Barack Obama from the primary ballot.

SoS Memoranum page 16

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23532

Quote:

The First Amended Complaint therefore does not satisfy
the most basic pleading requirements imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8; Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1954
(2009).

SoS memorandum page 19

No big surprise that Orly fails to meet even basic pleading requirements based on the Rules, therefore it is no surprise that Twombly and Iqbal continue to be brought up by defendants in her cases.

Edit: Just as an aside IIRC when asked about Twombly by Judge Guilford in Liberi v Taitz, another great birfer attorney, Berg, had never heard of it.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23532

OH!! Be sure to check out EXHIBIT A

:-bd

BillTheCat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1428

oooo I'm liking that Number 9 one, quite the smackdown

BillTheCat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1428

Foggy wrote:

... and it looks to me like she scrubbed or bumped down a lot of the posts about this case on her blog after receiving those ...

None of my comments are getting through moderation, but you can do a big smiley face by typing

on her blog, and a "cool" smiley by posting 8).

She hasn't posted mine in weeks. Me thinks she or cheetos are using IP's to reference (so using diff names and emails won't fool them), but then again, I don't know that they are smart enough to do that.

LM K · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:45 pm

borealis wrote:

"If something happens to me"? =))

Is she due for disbarment and an extended Club Fed vacation for contempt, fraud, perjury, threats to the president and members of state and federal governments, and allegedly being an unregistered agent of a foreign government?

In the old Soviet Union, dissidents would grab onto street lamps while screaming at the top of their lungs whenever the KGB tried to drag them off to the gulag. The KGB would be intimidated to point of abandoning the arrests until later. That strategy will not work here. She won't be spirited away in the middle of the night. It will be much worse. She might endure a very public trial that TRUtv might cover just for laughs. -xx

Of course this is mere speculation and NADT. It's too much fun having her around.

The only real threat to Orly's person is her driving habits.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23532

Foggy wrote:

... and it looks to me like she scrubbed or bumped down a lot of the posts about this case on her blog after receiving those ...

None of my comments are getting through moderation, but you can do a big smiley face by typing

on her blog, and a "cool" smiley by posting 8).

Indeed. I noticed that earlier too. Also.

And still no mention whatsoever of the motion for sanctions, etc., in IN.

Litlebritdifrnt2 · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:58 pm

realist wrote:

OH!! Be sure to check out EXHIBIT A

:-bd

Hmmmmmm did counsel for SOS get a little help with that?

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

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

Who is online