Carter v. Reid

Carter and Reid are two judges presiding over Orly Taitz lawsuits. Federal Judge David O. Carter has seen Taitz before in Barnett v. Obama, and now again in Judd v. Obama. Motions were filed in Judd but very early on in the process Judge Carter dismissed Judd sua sponte (on his own initiative) because his court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Carter wrote:

The “lack of jurisdiction is so fundamental a defect that the rule permits a judge to recognize it sua sponte at any time.”  Bernstein v. Universal Pictures, Inc., 517 F.2d 976,979 (2d Cir. 1975). Among the reasons for this sound rule is that “[j]udicial resources are precious, particularly in view of the courts’ steadily burgeoning caseload, and they should not be dissipated in futile proceedings.”  Id. The same could be said of the resources of the many government officials sued in this case—they need not spend taxpayer money to defend a proceeding if that proceeding is futile.

Superior Court Judge S. K. Reid in Marion County Indiana today held a trial in the case of Taitz v. Elections Commission in which the Indiana Attorney General’s office had moved and argued that the case should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Judge Reid took those arguments “under advisement” and held the trial anyway. One person who attended the trial who comments under the name A Legal Lohengrin said on the Fogbow forums:

If you read that as the court decides to hold the trial, and then, some time after that, decide whether it has the jurisdiction to hold the trial, that’s exactly what happened.

Reports on today’s Indiana trial from A Legal Lohengrin at the Fogbow and in an interview on Reality Check Radio:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4