Is Orly’s case doomed?
This evening I received upon request a copy of the Motion to dismiss, and Memorandum in support of the Indiana Secretary of State and Elections commission in the case of Taitz v. Elections Commission from the public relations officer of the Indiana Attorney General. Here they are:
The Memorandum provides a blow-by-blow account of what’s happened to date, bringing light where before there was only Taitz. We see laid out before us the history of motions, orders and decisions that led to the trial on limited causes of action and defendants scheduled for this Monday, October 22.
The Memorandum is 40 pages, but here’s my take on the significance of this as to what happens on Monday. First, let’s go back to Fogbow contributor GreatGrey’s hearing notes:
Judge Reid: I think what you’re getting at is Taitz lost with the EC, she appealed that and lost, and is now here trying to make an end run around the EC’s ruling.
The Defense plays this language back in their Memorandum, saying:
This Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims as an attempted end-run around the requirements of AOPA [Indiana Administrative Orders and Procedures Act], as barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and as repetitive and vexatious litigation.
The argument basically says that there is an exclusive statutory procedure for judicial review of election challenges: The objection is decided by the Elections Commission and that decision can be appealed and then there can be a petition for judicial review; however, Plaintiffs didn’t do that; rather than follow the Statute on how to obtain judicial review, they just filed a complaint for an injunction and such. Because the proper judicial body already decided the objection and Objectors lost on appeal, Plaintiffs can’t just try the same thing again in Superior Court.
In my view, the significance of this argument is that no matter what Orly wants to present in the way of evidence that the Democratic candidate for President is a Martian Muslim named Barack Mohammed Soebarkah, she’s out of luck because his ballot position has already been decided. If Judge Reid accepts this argument, then there can be no testimony from Taitz’ witnesses about Obama that is relevant to whatever part, if any, remains in the case.
While the trial Monday is set to cover only a small part of the entire Second Amended Complaint both as to causes of action and defendants, it looks like everything that pertains to Defendants under the court’s jurisdiction (by being actually served with the complaint) either has been dismissed already, or will likely be dismissed on Monday for
- res judicata
- collateral estoppel
- lack of subject matter jurisdiction
- failure to state a valid claim
- lack of standing
- failure to file tort claims notice
- sovereign immunity
or the Judge may dismiss the whole mess as a sanction for not following the rules.
Short Translation: SMACK!! KAPOW!! BIFF!!
I like the final phrase “and all other just and proper relief”. Is that a subtle request to the court to consider, ahem, sanctions?
Thanks for getting this!
Orly seems to be indicating on her blog that the MTD was denied (though there is no evidence to support her contention). This is Orly, where left is right and up is down, so take that as you will. But Orly is absolutely convinced that a trial will be held Monday and she is prepared to bring the entire circus to town.
Stock up on popcorn and earplugs today!
So Indiana moved to dismiss and mailed the motion to Dr. Taitz. There will be shrieking over that. And the motion seems to be a fairly thorough catalog of every defect one may make in filing a lawsuit. Including pointing out errors Dr. Taitz has made before, like setting forth full social security numbers..
I fully expect that Dr. Taitz will fail.
If she were to succeed, she would prevent Pres. Obama from winning a state he is not likely to win this time, and, probably further energize his supporters elsewhere to vote.
It’s hard to believe someone could be this dumb.
Holy shit! I’m just 11 pages into the “Memo to Support” and it’s such a complete SLAP DOWN!@#! How does she NOT get sanctioned for this crap???
Thanks Doc. It is great to obtain these. The Memorandum in Support is 40 pages in length and is very thorough. If Judge Reid doesn’t impose sanctions on Taitz based on these pleadings then Great Grey’s perception of her is probably right. (You will have to read The Fogbow to find out.)
“…the public … has already been harmed by Plaintiff’s actions.”
A-freakin’-men.
I uploaded OCR versions of the two files and changed the links in the article to these versions.
Defendants take great pains to catalog rule violations by Taitz in the section beginning on page 12.
They go on to list no less than 5 examples including the infamous Taitz trademark, the unredacted social-security number.
Trump, and now Corsi. A man is known by the company he keeps.
It’s hard to believe someone could be this dumb.
Finding something on the Fogbow is like … uhh, difficult. Greatgrey has over 4,000 posts.
Happy to help out. Your observation about search difficulty is correct as a general matter, but this one turns out to be easy with advanced search.
Put “reid” in the keyword query, and “greatgrey” in the author query, and make sure that you’ve selected results to be selected as “posts” rather than “topics.” The result set is manageable (19), and most are relevant.
You can weed out the irrelevant hits by using “+reid +indiana” as your keyword query
I bet Taitz will sue Shelby, Garn, and Joel because their signatures are unreadable.
Heck they are worse than mine, and that is saying a LOT.
Thanks. That advanced search will come in handy.
So I think I found the point that RC was trying to hint at.
My experience in trying to gauge judicial temperament is that I shouldn’t.
Ouch, ouch, ouch! Orly should be screaming fairly soon. I like this slap-down (page 30):
I know. That was mean. Great Grey didn’t put this in his official notes you linked but he added later that he had scribbled “the judge is a ditz” at the top of his notepad.
This article has been edited to tighten up the copy and add a few hyperlinks. Nothing of substance has changed.
OK, I’ve only gotten as far as the footnote on page 2 and I’m already thinking that all that’s missing is the calliope: