I wrote before that Orly Taitz had filed too many cases to prosecute all by herself. Perhaps she’s realized that, or has some other less-rational motive, in her latest move in Mississippi.
Taitz is asking federal judge Henry T. Wingate as to the possibility of consolidating her case in Mississippi, Taitz v. Democratic Party of Mississippi, with her case in California, Judd et al v. Obama et al. As Taitz says (admits?) in her letter to the judge, the cases are pretty much the same thing. Taitz argues “judicial economy.” The first option she presents is for Judge Wingate to grant her pro hac vice (permission to represent defendants in Mississippi, where she is not licensed to practice law) and transfer the California case to Mississippi, or alternately transfer the case to California. There’s a down side to each: In Mississippi she will have to file a complex Federal RICO questionnaire. In California she will have to face Judge Carter who has already ruled against her in another similar case. To quote Mr. Bryant:
I’m not a lawyer, and so I’m not really supposed to understand whether any of this makes legal sense under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (my citation). If I am patient, some nice federal judge will explain it to me and Orly Taitz. As a layman I say fewer cases would seem better; however, it’s abundantly clear that whatever Taitz’ real intentions, the real-world result will be delay far past the November elections that are just a month away, since the courts now have to process and hold hearings on the transfer motion. Taitz’ letter to Wingate might be just a delaying tactic to postpone filing the RICO questionnaire, since Wingate is not the one who decides who will hear the consolidated case in the first place, and he can’t rule on pro hac vice for Taitz before there is a case and motions made and answered. One might suppose that the Defendant Mississippi Secretary of State would object to the case being consolidated and tried in California. Likewise the California defendants might object to having to defend in Mississippi. Certainly her moving, removing and transferring is causing massive extra work for defendants.
It appears that someone scanned page 2 of her filing from the back, leaving it illegible. This probably helps her overall.
2012-10-02 – SDMS – TAITZ v MSDPM – Letter From Pro Se Plaintiff Orly Taitz – ECF 42
Update: Taitz has now filed notices indicating that she is consolidating the cases. As of this moment, they have not yet appeared on the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation docket.
Looks like Orly copies and pastes things she finds in the internet and files them as her motions and pleadings. You can clearly see in that letter she added the “Your Honor” with the “find and replace” feature in her word processing application.
Well, now it makes at least some sense that Taitz wanted both cases in federal court. But it is not really “both” cases, since she also wants Taitz vs Sebelius in Texas (!) consolidated with this one.
Doc: “Certainly her moving, removing and transferring is causing massive extra work for defendants.”
Which is why we have more reason now to hope that one of the defendants in these three cases will waive proper service (you do not really believe anyone has been properly served, do you?) so that he can hit Taitz with claims for lawyer fees and damages. Yes, anti-SLAPP motions would be a nice way to end this circus.
[Oh, lest I forget to mention: I am not paying for Orlana Le Fay’s antics, but every US tax payer is…]
Oh, and IANAL but it seems a bit preposterous to believe that a motion like this, which is going to need months to even be considered by the three judges would mean she does not have to write her RICO statement in Mississippi. For who would bear the law’s delay, that patient merit of the unworthy takes, as the Bard once asked. One would think that “in the interest of judicial economy” time be filled with doing chores that need to be done anyway.
Not that this thing will ever be decided in court before 2017.
Wasn’t Taitz v Sebelius already in CA and dropped due to venue? I would ask, how does combining the case already dumped from CA with another CA case that does not cover HCA going to work, but, then, well… it’s Orly.
Examining the question…
The requirements for service are in FRCP 4 – Summons.
The “proof of service” that’s filed in the docket is a bunch of certified mail receipts. Real summons appear to require hand delivery and an affidavit of that delivery.
According to Rule 4, if a defendant refuses a request for waiver of service, the costs of the service fall on the defendant. It also provides for service of federal defendants by certified mail (properly addressed). It could be that one or more waivers have been returned. The New Hampshire defendants have responded by filing a motion, suggesting to me that they consider themselves served or waived.
The proof of service filings I looked at are:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Judd_10_Return-of-Summons.pdf
and
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Judd_16_Service.pdf
I didn’t find anything that looked like a valid service.
Here’s my rendition of “Taitz simplified”
Screech Owl + Mascara + Lots of meth.
Moving in the multidistrict jurisdiction for consolidatIon does not stop the clock on any pending deadlines.
And even if she does not have to file the RICO questionnaire in MS it does not matter. She will have to plead RICO with specificity no matter where she attempts to file and whether that jurisdiction uses the questionnaire or not. She can never meet the pleading requirements for RICO.
Taitz cannot avoid filing the RICO statement by seeking a transfer to another federal district court. The Central District of California has a Standing Order governing RICO cases and it requires a RICO statement setting forth in excruciating detail the basis of the plaintiff’s claims.
Transfer is not automatic; it is entirely within the discretion of the court. Moreover, Taitz’s claim that the defendants are not anticipated to object is insufficient — the defendants must be served any motion for transfer and their objection requires a hearing.
Multidistrict litigation is intended for multiple suits brought by various plaintiffs and generally involve complex issues of fact and/or law. Tatiz’s suits are pending in multiple districts by her own choice; the court is unlikely to be sympathetic to her whining about the inconvenience and cost of travel because she selected the venues.
None of the three cases will survive 12(b) motions. Transfer in order to accommodate discovery and pretrial management is completely unnecessary.
P.S. Tick tock, Orly. Only seven days to get that RICO statement filed in Mississippi.
Yes, but ORLY doesn’t know that.
OK, I studied law at a better, more prestigious Law School than Orly (namely Wikipedia) but I haven’t attempted the California (or any other) Bar Exam ( I really think I should though – I reckon I’d piss it in – I couldn’t possibly do worse than her; it must really be a piece of cake).
Anyway, I don’t have the bona fides that Orly has, so I’m having a bit of trouble with the detail of something I read in my text book today:
So to go back to the second paragraph,
1a) is the Judge’s Order for Orly to submit a proper RICO statement a ‘lawful order of a court’ that would satisfy this definition?
1b) does Orly know what is expected of her with regards to the RICO statement?
1c) is it possible for Orly to satisfy that demand (I don’t mean a valid one, just one that satisfies the order)
1d) if she fails to comply to produce the RICO statement can the Judge then charge her with contempt?
1e) would that be direct or indirect contempt. If indirect, we’d get another whole trial for her to go off topic, right? But she could be put in jail until she produced it, right? She could rot away like that guy Chadwick, right?
2a) is Orly’s constant running off at the mouth about everything except the point being addressed a ‘disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour’ that would satisfy this definition?
2b) is Orly made aware of the requirement to stay on point,
2c) is the requirement to stay on point made absolutely clear to her? Really, really, clear?
2d) if she continually fails to comply to the straightforward procedure, can the Judge then charge her with contempt?
2e) I assume that would be direct contempt, the Judge can just throw her in the hole to think about it over night, right, or can she be left there to rot, like Chadwick?.
3) Does publishing Obama’s SSN without censoring it appropriately constitute “publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial”? I assume that would be indirect if so?
4) What about the document dump she keeps adding to each trial, does that constitute “publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial”? Direct or indirect?
5) What about the continual ‘administrative motions’, consolidations, her new found best friend ‘removal’, and all these other maneuvers trying to get out of following procedure, do they constitute ‘disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour’? Indirect, yes?
I know Judges will fall over themselves to avoid Contempt of Court and Orly is probably right to think that she can continue to get away with all this crap. But she has got to be awfully close to the line, and the evidence is clear that the Judges are aware of what she has been doing in other jurisdictions. They can’t hit her with contempt for what she has done in other courts, but they can give her the rope to hang herself in their court. I reckon that is what the judge has done with this RICO thing.
And double-plus extra, she has form in California with the Judge there. How can she deny ‘showing disrespect for the judge’ after she has called him a traitor, a liar, on the take, and half a dozen other vile accusations that I can’t remember?
Orly throws RICO accusations into her Petition to Consolidate?
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=334592
Only through mental illness, Keith.
Orly thinks she has enough power to delay our presidential election: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109437642/Judd-v-Obama-Notice-of-Petition-Multidistrict
Someone get a straight jacket. She’s ready!
If I understand Dr. Taitz’ petition to consolidate the three cases, she continues to sue Judge Land for ruling against her. One would think that whoever sits on the panel which decides these things would be sympathetic to a Federal judge sued by an unhappy litigant.
Doc, a request for waiver of service is made by the plaintiff BEFORE he/she attempts service of process under Rule 4. It is intended as a cost-saving measure. How this happens is, the plaintiff sends a polite letter to the defendant or counsel enclosing a copy of the complaint that would otherwise be served with summons. The defendant would then respond, by letter or other written communication, indicating that service is expressly waived. Formal service of process would then not be necessary. All of this must be done at least 30 days in advance of attempting formal service.
Of course, that is how competent counsel handles it. Here, there is nothing — absolutely nothing — indicative that Orly Taitz requested that the defendants to waive service. She would have trumpeted it on her blog had such been done. Instead she went straight to service of process and did so improperly. If a request is never made by the plaintiff, the defendant can never be assessed the avoidable costs of service.
Any defendant is free, of course, to waive DEFECTIVE service, but that is not what Rule 4 addresses. Here is how service of process is properly effected:
Rule 4(e) Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District of the United States. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served in a judicial district of the United States by:
(1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or
(2) doing any of the following:
(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally;
(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or
(C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.
I’m grateful that she sued Judge Land. Now if she ever sues me for calling her crazy, I can just point to that and say: “Your Honor, isn’t it crazy to sue a federal judge just because he ruled against you?”
I understand the world of Dr. Taitz is upside down, but what can possibly be the philosophical underpinning of the idea that if one is unhappy with the decision of a judge, and appeals have failed, you can sue that judge 3000 miles away for fraud. I think the suit against state officials in distant states is equally nutty. If someone works in the public sector, he or she should not expect as a cost of their job that they will be sued at a distance.
Moreover, in the upside down world of Dr. Taitz, suing Judge Land and the various officials in distant locations, making up fraud and RICO claims without substance, and threatening the latest judge with treason charges if that judge does not rule in Dr. Taitz’ favor, is designed to fail. Not that any of these suits with slightly more skilled attorneys will get anywhere, but it is as if Dr. Taitz sits there and says “what can I do next to guarantee failure?” This may have been amusing in “The Producers,” but in the real world in which we live it is not funny.
For the typical crank, the motive is “I desperately want to continue litigating my issue, even though all appeals have failed”. So he hopes that suing the judge would mean revisiting the original issue (to determine whether the judge acted lawfully or not) and thereby, hopefully, finding the original decision(s) wrong.
For Orly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the only motive was pure spite. After all, she still has some 40 states where she hasn’t taken her crap to court.
There is a chance that Taitz has finally figured it out.
Has she? We don’t [know] the specifics, and Hawaiian law governs the procedure by which state employees are served when sued in their official capacities. Does Mr. Fenton know those rules and did he follow them?
Is this required in a federal case? My unlearned reading of Rule 4 provides for service according to local law as one option of service, but 4(e)(2)(A) says: “delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally;”
Here’s an interesting factoid: Moldova consumes the highest amount of alcohol per capita in the world. (Source: Wikipedia)
She is suing Onaka and Fuddy for acts performed in their capacity as employees/agents of the State. The Hawaii rules have very specific requirements for how that must be accomplished. If these defendants were individuals sued in their individual capacities, then they could be served in the manner provided by F.R.Civ. P. 4(e). However, when suing agents of the State, Taitz is effectively suing the State of Hawaii and Rule 4(j) governs.
#FAIL
Maybe because of the celebrations that started when Orly moved out?
Perhaps, but Moldova has been producing wine grapes for hundreds of years.
I was thinking more along the lines of alcoholic parents, low IQ and an increased need for attention as a child.
Would explain some things.
Well, when it comes to suing the judges who told you no, Montgomery Blair Sibley is ahead of Orly, in the first Fall 2012 Order list for Montgomery Blair Sibley v. Supreme Court of the United States, et al;
The lesson for Orly will be…. do not sue the Supreme Court if they may change a justice during the suit, thus leaving an ebil Boston Liberal as the remaining, unsued, justice.
10/10/2012 43 AFFIDAVIT of Personal Service on Barack Obama and Obama for America, filed by Christopher-Earl: Strunk obo Orly Taitz
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=24020#more-24020
I have more and more sympathy for the Secret Service that have to deal with these clearly delusional Birthers. A must read as an insight to the wierd paranoia of Birthers.