The case of Keith Judd et al v. Barack Obama et al was filed in California state court, but after an unfavorable ruling, Orly Taitz “removed” it to federal court. This seems to be an example of Orly law, since in traditional law, only defendants remove cases. Nonetheless, something happened and now there is a case that appears on the docket for the California Central District Court.
Familiar face
The new judge presiding over the case is none other than the Honorable David O. Carter, fully experienced in the unique legal approach of Taitz from the case of Barnett v. Obama. He saw that case transmogrify from a challenge to Obama’s election to a RICO action, and saw first hand her inability to properly serve President Obama (Orly’s volunteer left the summons with a male clerk, a mail clerk, or was it a male mail clerk?).
The present case is curious because the court docket doesn’t show a complaint. The only copy we have is the final draft from the Taitz web site. Whether the case truly exists in federal court is something from a branch of law too esoteric for me (the authority Taitz cites, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, seems to apply only to removal by defendants), but I do note that Judge Carter accepted the transfer of the case from another federal judge pursuant to General Order 08-05 (Been There, Done That). The court did issue summons.
Moved, removed, or created ex nihilo
The Docket indicates that Orly Taitz filed an electronic copy and a paper copy of her notice of removal and that they weren’t the same (Taitz says they are). Judge Carter ordered Taitz to file a correct electronic copy by September 25. This is the markup made by the Superior Court court clerk:
Later Taitz filed an “Administrative motion to correct the record,” saying that she wasn’t removing the case, but filing a new related case. But how does one file a new complaint titled “First Amended complaint?” Oppsies. Now, the question remains, where’s the complaint in this NEW case? It’s not on the court docket, but maybe, just maybe the defendants were served with it.
Meanwhile Taitz requested leave to file a motion for a stay or to shorten the time for defendants1 to respond (Federal defendants get 60 days to respond under the rules except, I guess, under Orly law). In one of her motions Taitz listed who she considered to be the “Federal defendants” and the name of Barack Obama was not there. Carter whipped out his big red DENIED electronic rubber stamp and put that one out of its misery.
Orly misrepresents a client
In her “Emergency motion for stay”, Taitz wrote:
Plaintiffs include Keith Judd, who ran for the U.S. President in the Democratic Party primary and got 40% of the vote in the state of Virginia.
That should be West Virginia.
The last action of note in the case is the application to appear pro hac vice by Nancy J. Smith, New Hampshire Asst. Attorney General on behalf of the New Hampshire Secretary of State, William Gardner, and the NH Ballot Law Commission defendants: granted.
1The defendants are: Michael Astrue, John Avlon, Ballot Law Commission of State of Hew Hampshire, Board of Directors of California Republican Party, Debra Bowen, CNN, William A Chatfield, Clearchannel Communications, Jane Does, John Does, Patrick R Donahoe, Elizabeth Emken, Dianne Feinstein, Forbes Magazine, William M Gardner, Alice Travis Germond, Eric Holder, John and Ken Show, KFI AM 640, Brian P Kemp, John Kobelt, Clay D Land, Dean C Logan, MSNBC, Chris Matthews, Lynn Matusow, Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama, Obama for America, Alvin Onaka, Nancy Pelosi, Brian Schatz, Natalie E Tennant and Kevin Underhill.
It was a male mail clerk. 😉
I’d almost feel sorry for Orly at this point, but she’s a reprehensible sack of human filth I wouldn’t piss out of she was on fire.
Major Major Major.
I had a movement today too. I’m pretty sure it was for exactly the same reason as Orly’s.
You beat me to it.
For someone who has such a hard time serving defendants properly, you would think she’d try to whittle down her list of them just a tad.
Orly says she has also heard from the Attorney General of GA and an attorney for Clear Channel Communications. I suppose we’ll find out shortly whether that is true.
One of the things that I need to be aware of is that Orly Taitz, because of her inexperience, sometimes uses the wrong names for things. I seem to recall in the Mississippi case when it was at the state level that she filed a motion for something or another, but the opposing counsel said it was really a motion for something with a different name. I’m wondering if Orly, instead of “removing” the case is requesting a transfer, and whether that is possible, and particularly not possible without the concurrence of defendants.
I’m pretty sure she meant this as a removal but did not know that plaintiffs can’t remove. About a week ago, she submitted something she called an “administrative motion” (a name she made up) to “correct” the record that this is a new case and not a removal from state court. Maybe Judge Carter won’t notice that the initiating document in the case is a notice of removal. And maybe no one will bother to check the state court docket and see the notice of removal she filed there.
Or, maybe she told the judge a bald-faced lie to try to cover up her incompetence and save her near-dead case.
On the one hand, these “ballot challenges” are the only thing that might save America-as-we-know-it but, on the other hand, don’t even rate being typed.
Anytime a defendent does something to one of Orly’s cases and she learns a new procedure or word, she uses it.
It just so happened that the MS SOS and MS Democratic Party removed her case there to Federal court. That was something Orly didn’t think defendents could do. But she apparently thought it was a very good move and would help her case in California. So, she removed it. Not that it matters that a plaintiff can’t remove their own case from State to Federal Court.
There are numerous instances that Orly learns a new term or word and then her future motions are littered with the use. Kind of like the word “stipulate”. That was something that came up in a response to one of her motions and now she tends to use stipulate a lot.
is this case on carter’s docket?
tia
this is a copy of the order on scribd – look at page 2
http://www.scribd.com/doc/108033126/2012-09-25-CDCA-Judd-v-Obama-ORDER-Denying-Ex-parte-Hearing-ECF-9
I love the smell of sanctions in the morning.
Typical crank pattern, the belief in “magic words” that, if used, turn a loss into a victory.
It shows again Orly isn’t a lawyer, no matter what degree she may have cheated herself into. She acts and talks like a 100% true blue crank layman.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPXVGQnJm0w
It also affects the Settlers and their politicians:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2012/09/netanyahu-explained.html
Orly also sent an improper letter to the judge in her MS case asking to consolidate the RICO case she filed there with Judd.http://www.scribd.com/doc/109014923/2012-10-02-SDMS-TAITZ-v-MSDPM-Letter-From-Pro-Se-Plaintiff-Orly-Taitz-ECF-42
Today, she has posted a draft of a request to consolidate Judd v.Obama, Taitz v. Sebelius and Taitz. v. Democratic Party of Mississippi, et al.
You never can quite predict just what she’ll do next. LOL
I’m not sure that’s Orly’s thinking. I think she just may understand, on some level, that other lawyers know more about the law than she does, so if they use a term, it must be a good term to use.
Conspicuously missing from her website would be the RICO statement she should have prepared or should be preparing. Why no drafts of that? It is due next Monday.
Could it be that she thinks by writing letters to the judge for clarification or submitting a motion for consolidation that this will give her extra time to answer the questions on that questionnaire? Never mind that it was due shortly after she first filed the lawsuit back in April.
I think that’s part,if not all, of the inspiration behind her new idea to consolidate the cases and get that RICO out of MS. She has no idea how to answer the MS RICO questionnaire.
More proof that she never actually attended any of her online classes and paid someone to sit for the bar exam. She doesn’t know procedure. She learns procedure in real time (and poorly, I might add).
I agree. It’s hard to file a “First Amended Complaint” as the first document in case.
Thanks for pointing out the administrative motion. I have updated the article to reflect this as well as added other links to documents and some other improvements.
The entertainment value of the patented “Orly Taitz method to losing in court” is really starting to wear thin.
It’s like a train wreck: if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.
I was on an aircraft carrier while in the Navy, and one of the pilots painted the name “Yossarian” on his plane.
If anything, law schools around the country will start using Orly’s motions and pleadings to show the students how an incompetent attorney practices law.
You may not be aware of this, but you said is not future, but present. There’s an article in the works on this!
Judd v. Obama: New Hampshire Wants Out
a hodgepodge of parties
The mishmash of claims
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=24000