Orly Taitz has a penchant for interpreting judicial events as meaning her litigation targets are in default. She did it in Mississippi with Michael Astrue [link to Taitz web site] and she did it Indiana against the Secretary of State [link to Taitz web site]. And again against Barack Obama in the Judd case in California [link to Taitz web site]. Those are just since last October. She didn’t get a default judgment in any of these.
Well she’s at again, this time declaring Obama is in default in Grinols v. Electoral College [link to Taitz web site]. I am not a lawyer, and as I continue to do this web site I become more and more aware of how much I don’t know about the law and how it is difficult to substitute Google for a real legal education. Nevertheless, based on Orly’s track record and the presumed competence of Obama’s representation, I’m going out on a limb here and say that Taitz is wrong.
In the federal system there are two standards of response to the complaint in a civil lawsuit, one for ordinary folks and one for the government. This is detailed in FRCP 12(a). The normal 21-day response requirement is extended to 60 days when the United States or one of its Officers is sued in connection with their official duties. Orly Taitz is trying to sue Obama as a candidate, not as President, but she served him on January 4 through the Attorney General, and not personally. Since she served the government, only the government is obligated to respond, and they get 60 days. If Orly persists in saying that she is suing Obama personally, then she hasn’t served him at all, and the 21-day clock hasn’t even started.
Anyhow, Taitz has filed for a “expedited default judgment” against Obama and in that judgment she is asking the Court to declare Barack Obama ineligible to be President (point 8 in the proposed order).
Orly Taitz is crying “wolf” and wasting the taxpayers motion tilting at windmills.
Here’s Orly’s motion:
EDCA ECF 64 2013-01-30 – Grinols v Electoral College – Notice of Default of Defendant Obama by Jack Ryan
She met with the Director of the Selective Service in March, 2009?
…or “voolf,” maybe?
On this theme, though beyond the legal aspect, I think this characteristic exemplifies part of the birther/obama-conspiracy mindset we see at large, and which I see personally–namely, the inability/refusal to reflect on one’s own flaws and put those flaws onto someone or something outside of oneself. Someone else typically is the one doing something wrong. We see similar responses in accidents, where the default can be to blame the other person right out of the gate, even when the other person is the clear and obvious victim. That kind of defensive style is one thing, but shamelessly continuing to refuse responsibility in the face of insurmountable evidence is a whole other phenomenon. To my perspective, it represents extreme fragility masquerading as strength, an uber-resistance that cannot face itself.
Okay, this reflection is way beyond this one instance of crying wolf, but without being a psychologist, this aspect of birtherism is what most concerns me, or engages me. I ask myself what is the common denominator throughout my family, of those who to different degrees and in different manners engage in birtherism or some form of conspiracy thinking. I see perfectionism gone wild, in a toxic sense. I see similar background experiences viz. communism (the Polish experience in particular and historical concerns here in general), which experiences provide the context for the personal FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) that gets externalized, pushed out onto others. I think it gets pathological and extreme beyond reason when the person cannot even admit their mistakes or errors to themselves. Thus, they come across on the surface as sincere, because they need that sincerity for their own self-regard. So we also see expressions of injury (emotional hurts and slights) taking the forefront. They cannot be wrong because they mean well (in their own core), but they thus blind themselves to the harm that they actually bring about themselves through their very insistence on their own sincerity. Their very sincerity becomes the medium or catalyst or enabler for their most despicable claims and actions and verbal assaults.
I am talking about my personal family, but I guess, or keep finding, that it relates to Orly Taitz. The quotes on her website, for instance, represent some otherwise admirable qualities of determination that have been transformed into blinders of justification. Here we also see that with Orly Taitz it is always the other person who is wrong, despite her own clear mistakes, because her self-felt sincerity seems to trump all other considerations.
The depth of delusion that their sincerity is based on boggles the sane mind. Orly thinks if she brings the same losing case often enough, it will eventually win. She can’t understand that she’s flipping a bad penny, so she accuses everyone who reports it’s landed again on “fail”, of treason.
And she can’t discuss issues without pronouncing opponents “enemies” or “criminals” against whom she is launching a vindictive attack campaign of some kind. If Orly Taitz is thrown into Hell, she’ll immediately post on her site, “Important! I need to talk with anyone who has been threatened by God or especially, anyone who has seen God’s dirty underwear.”
She also can’t get to grips with how the courts work, or how to draft legal documents, and both of these are, you’d think, high on the list of what law students are expected to learn. Which again makes me wonder if someone did her law exams for her. This isn’t beyond the realms of possibility with online schools.
FIFY
Sour cream with your borscht, maybe?
Still, she had to pass the California Bar exam. How she pulled that off mystifies me. I hope the bar has re-examined its security precautions for all future bar exams.
It is weird, isn’t it? Because the drivel that passes for motions and briefs could not possibly have scraped even a bare pass, and they are a product of the mindset that trips her up every time on process, timelines etc.
Definitely tilting at windmills.
FRCP 12(h)(3) Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.
“волк” (volk)
I think it goes beyond that and is inherent in the conspiracy theorist mind, which is based on inductive reasoning. With inductive reasoning the “investigator” starts with the conclusion and looks for everything that supports it. And all evidence is viewed through the conclusion or with confirmation bias if you will. Anything that tends not to support the conclusion is immediately rejected as not valid, or worse, part of the conspiracy. So with each loss, the conspiracy grows wider, etc.
I grew up boggled by it. It’s not just a misuse of logic. It involves being locked in and an absolute refusal to simply look and see, while convincing yourself you have seen (enough). A deep fear of some kind and a sense of righteousness seem to be a very airtight combination. Being able to project errors onto others becomes very useful in deflecting anxiety about one’s own standing, especially when one is too intelligent or sensitive to hide from the fact of “something” being wrong or off. Then it must be someone else, because when “I” look into my own soul I see I am a good, sincere person.
I think that also means intelligence or the lack thereof has nothing to do with the motivating force of birtherism and conspiracy thinking. Intelligence may even be a bit of a prerequisite to fully develop the pursuit. Thus, I am nonplussed by calling birthers stupid, just as I am nonplussed when birthers declare they aren’t stupid. My sense is always, so?
I’m not talking about the con artists or the gleeful monsters. Those people are trivial fireflies, who cause problems, big and small, but there is nothing puzzling about them.
Your post contains one point that needs clarification: Taitz never actually accomplished service on Barack Obama, either in his official or personal capacity. You can’t default someone you haven’t served.
The wolf is of course the symbol of Chechnya. When Orly first arrived on the birther scene, people thought she was from Chechnya.
In Russian, flipping a coin is called “orlyanka” – which would also be an acceptable diminutive of “Orly”.
You cannot make this stuff up. If it were used in a Hollywood film about the goold old days of birfery, in let’s say 20 years, people would say that you are laying it on too thick.
remember, your demons are just as smart as you are …
Assuming the court wants to entertain service and consider Obama in default, I would agree that Orly is right – Obama is in Default. Obama lives at the White House. I can’t imagine how Obama could personally be served without going through an official government official. The AG is Obama’s Chief Justice Officer and Orly has properly served Obama personally and Obama is in default.
Closed Mind: Ban “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”
Inquiring Mind: Why? Have you read it?
Closed Mind: No. I don’t have to read degenerate filth to know it when I smell it. Somebody else who hasn’t read it said so and that’s good enough for me.
Closed Mind: Ban “Salo”
Inquiring Mind: Why? Have you seen it?
Closed Mind: No. I don’t have to see filth to know it when I smell it. Somebody else who hasn’t seen it said so and that’s good enough for me.
Closed Mind: Ban “Norman Lindsay’s Paintings”
Inquiring Mind: Why? Have you viewed them?
Closed Mind: No. I don’t have to view filth to know it when I smell it. Somebody else who hasn’t viewed it said so and that’s good enough for me.
I’ll let Judge England explain it to you in his order dismissing the motion.
But the AG isn’t Candidate Obama’s anything. He doesn’t represent Obama, as a private citizen, any more than he does me. And he surely can’t accept service for me.
You have to separate the Presidency from Obama the person. Either you serve the President or you serve the person. Orly can’t seem to figure out how to serve the person, so she serves the President. Presidents get 60 days. (I should point out that she failed to complete service, even in his official capacity.)
That’s very interesting point Andy that the courts really never raised or answered. Is a current President bidding for re-election actually 2 seperate person entities; a person who is the current President and a person who is a candidate for President. And such, how does such treatment and laws apply to such an individual. In this post, how does service apply to such an individual.
For pete’s sake, birthers. Service upon the President of the United States is accomplished by following the rules and statutes approved by Congress. You don’t get to just randomly decide that the Attorney General sounds like a good guess and therefore serving Eric Holder’s receptionist will do the trick. Sorry. It doesn’t work that way. Service has not been accomplished upon Barack Obama. Period.
Here is another observation for you to do a deep think about, John: the world is not limited by what you cannot imagine.
If you cared to find out how such a thing could be done, instead of making lazy, false and baseless assertions, you could find out easily enough (it took me one minute). Just ask Ken Starr how he served Bill Clinton. Or just read this article:
http://articles.cnn.com/1998-07-26/politics/clinton.subpoena_1_subpoena-clinton-and-lewinsky-grand-jurors?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
“Sources familiar with the White House legal strategy said Starr contacted the presidents personal attorney, David Kendall, by phone to tell him the subpoena had been issued and that the subpoena was delivered to Kendalls office shortly afterward.”
No. The question is who is Orly Taitz trying to serve, in what capacity? That is the question for her to answer, not the courts.
Plenty of crackpots in the country. It probably isn’t the first time. Why, I bet said receptionist has a special inbox just for the President’s lawsuits!
Ummm, yes, those would be the best kind. Not at all wise to trust any unofficial officials.
No, he is not. He is the US Government’s chief legal advisor, lawyer and chief law enforcement officer. He is appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate to serve in a government position. Though the AG is the chief lawyer for the government, most of the time, the Executive Office of the President (i.e. the White House) has their own counsel for more direct advising. Obama likely still retains his own, or, as a candidate, his campaign likely retained one.
Just once, you might want to try to figure out how the government works.
It is becoming fairly obvious that you go out of your way not to try to investigate or learn anything that might disturb your preconceived ideas about Obama’s eligibility. I am continually amazed how often people on this site are willing to put up with your deliberate ignorance and do the simple fact-checking that you should be able to do for yourself. I am even more amazed at how often you ignore what they tell you and repeat your misconceptions.
It’s fascinating stuff from a psychological point of view.
Gotta tell ya… I’ve passed that California Bar and it was hard as hell, and many very intelligent people I know failed it more than once. Orly passing it is one of the great mysteries of our time. At this point, I honest to God suspect it was a clerical error.
Didn’t Mario Apuzzo find a way to serve him as a candidate?
They have those at the Department of Redundancy Department.
Question for the attorneys:
Does a motion to dismiss by any party stop the clock on answering the complaint for everyone?
and probably Klayman in Florida too.
I recall one of Orly’s trips to Hawaii where she was met at the DOH by someone who could actually accept personal service for the department. They asked if she wanted to serve her subpoena. She said no and went to the court house to file.
Does she really want to perfect service correctly or does she realize her cases and subpoenas are defective? She may be thinking that proper service of a defective case will quicken its demise.
I left a suggestion over on Taitz’ web site. I told her to contact Apuzzo to get help, since he previously offered to help her.
Northland10: Does she really want to perfect service correctly or does she realize her cases and subpoenas are defective? She may be thinking that proper service of a defective case will quicken its demise.
OR she and others can continue to say that their cases have not been decided on the merits YET –
standing, properly effectuated service of process, rules, etc are all excuses they can use as to why their cases were dismissed, affirmed & denied cert – any day now, some honest judge will decide on the merits
(not to mention the decisions rendering obama a NBC)
it belies credulity that after more than 4 years she (and others) can’t follow the rules and civil procedure
it’s an excuse for more money begging and to keep the issues/conspiracies “alive”
Not an attorney, but I believe the answer is no. Each party has the duty to represent their own position. In many birther cases, there is one attorney representing many defendants, because they share the same duties and many of the same arguments.
But each defendant, I believe, has to make those defenses known to the court for their particular circumstances. Just as different defendants can have different amounts of time to respond, they also have different clocks running, if I understand it correctly.
I’m just waiting for the day she cries “I WAS DISBARRED! WAAAAAAAAH!”. Or better yet cries of “WAAAAAAH! I’M BANKRUPT!”, or perhaps the least likely “MY FOLLOWERS GOT WISE AND LEFT ME HIGH AND DRY! WAAAAAH!”
—-
No. The clock is still running on the other parties.
Note that it is not unusual for a defendant to miss an answer/respond date. If a defendant moves for more time, more time will be granted. If a Judge ultimately grants a default judgment, the defendant still has 30 days to move to vacate that default.
Regardless, Judge England has already ruled (in the TRO) that the Court lacks jurisdiction so he cannot grant a default judgment and he has to dismiss the case. He can always dismiss the case sua sponte.
And yet instead England has granted a hearing on a motion to reconsider denying the TRO, on February 21. I’ve seen my own bias lead me astray in trying to guess what a judge is thinking often enough to stop making such speculations. I will just say that Judge England seems to be better schooled on the tricks and manners of Orly Taitz than any other judge she’s come before.
—-
It will be very interesting to see how he plays this. The motion to reconsider the TRO–seeking injunction to keep the President from taking the Oath of Office–is moot. Orly’s motion also makes a lot of unfounded accusations against the U.S. Attorney, and includes new evidence of her own unethical conduct. So I expect that to be part of the discussion at the hearing.
But unless the Judge changes his mind and decides that he somehow does have subject matter jurisdiction, he is powerless to render judgment against the President. (A judge’s power in a case arises from his/her jurisdiction over the matter, which is why: “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” FRCP 12(h)(3)). Must.
That said, it is true that one never knows what a judge is thinking or what he/she will do next…
But doesn’t the judge’s finding that there is no subject matter jurisdiction make the Motion for Recondition frivolous on its face? The motion is based on ridiculous accusations against the AG’s office and does not address the substance of the judge’s decision. As I recall, the attorneys were there as a courtesy to the court because the defendants had not been properly served. Even if Orly was correct in her assertion that some of the members of congress did not want to oppose the TRO, the AG could have come in and stipulated that Orly was correct on the facts and the judge would still be powerless to grant the TRO because he did not have SM jurisdiction. Hell, the President could have come in and testified that Orly was correct and the court could would still have been required to deny the TRO.
How can the judge NOT grant sanctions under those circumstances?
Given the fact that ruled that he does not have SM Jurisdiction one has to wonder why he did not dismiss the entire case outright. Is there a cause of action other than the request for the injunction, that might have Sm Jurisdiction over? Does he simply want to retain some jurisdiction over Orly? He did, in no uncertain terms, tell her that she had no chance to win the case on its merits. I would take that as a hint to drop the case. Obviously, she didn’t. Did he do that on purpose so he could sanction her later? I too have given up trying to understand what is in a Judge’s mind. But one thing is for sure, the only way to predict what Orly will do is to forget everything I have ever learned about the law and think with the emotional maturity of a child whose parents won’t buy the desired toy.
This one brings many quotes to mind:
A fool and his money are soon parted.
A sucker is born every day.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
—
I agree with all you said. I think it’s particularly amazing that Taitz put on the record that she contacted defendants (electors/congressmen) asking them to disclose their communications with defense counsel and to admit her allegations and legal conclusions. If I were the Judge, I would slam her for that, in addition to slamming her for absolutely everything else under Rule 11(b)(1-4)
Actually pretty well known, thanks to birfer madness.
At the time of the April ’11 press gaggle, the president’s counsel (aka White House Counsel) was Bob Bauer.
The president’s personal legal firm is Perkins Coie. Bauer came from Perkins Coie but did not work for them when he was White House Counsel. In June 2011 he rejoined Perkins Coie to be chief attorney for the Obama 2012 campaign. Perkins Coie also represented the Obama campaign in 2008, again with Bauer as lead attorney.
Bauer’s replacement as White House Counsel is Kathryn Ruemmler. She was at Latham & Watkins before joining the government.
White House Counsel is not the president’s personal attorney. We know from the April ’11 shindig that Judith Corley of Perkins Coie acted as the president’s personal attorney, contacting the HI DoH and flying to Hawaii to pick up the “copies of the certificates”, in her words — the pieces of paper the Cold Case Posse claims never existed. (I’ve never seen them retract this claim; it’s central to their original arguments.)
As Paper has pointed out, it is up to the plaintiff to make it clear whether the President is being sued in his official capacity or as an individual. Orly wants to have it both ways. She sued Obama as a candidate, but she served him in his official capacity.
Obviously, in the case of a sitting President a process server can’t go up to the front door of the White House and ring the bell. The proper procedure would be to contact Obama’s personal attorney (I believe that would be Robert Bauer), who would either accept service of behalf of Obama or designate an individual who is authorized to accept service.
—
I think this is it. Seems like he is giving her enough rope to hang herself.
In my experience it is exceedingly rare for a default judgment to be upheld if a defendant has makes a timely motion to vacate it, unless the default is the result of inexcusable negligence. Orly is laboring under the misconception that if she gets a default judgment the game will be over and she will get everything she is asking for, plus a pony.
I would like to think that that is true, but historically, Judges have been way to lenient with her. Despite all the warnings and the all of the bad conduct and antics, she has really only been hit with sanctions twice, never been ruled a vexatious litigator or really had any significant consequences. Even the sanctions have helped her “I am a victim of the regime” act. Since there is really no accountability for the donations she receives from her FM, one has to wonder if she considers them a cost of doing business.
—-
Way too lenient. It not only is costly to the taxpayer, but it is so troubling to attorneys who respect the Courts and are held to a much higher standard. I am particularly annoyed that she gets away with baselessly calling the Judges corrupt/treasonous–if that isn’t contempt, then what it?
Perhaps, now that the President has been sworn in, the Courts will stop being so lenient…
—
True, a timely motion to vacate is routinely granted.
Sorry, used the wrong “to”.
I remember a case from a while back where either an attorney or a party was making incredibly disparaging remarks about the trial judge in press conferences and the judge cited the person for contempt. Ultimately, it was ruled the conduct had to be in the court for it to be contempt. One has to factor in first amendment rights when contempt is being contemplated. Her conduct in interviews and on her blog, while vile and reprehensible probably cannot be used as a basis for contempt, but to the exent that she makes these accusations in pleadings and in open court, she should have been smacked long ago for that.
Dam homophonic heterographs. 😉
I’d make that a two FACED penny
More Sues!!!! Sue ’em all!