OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz


If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.





The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
orly.taitz@gmail.com.
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.  -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.  -- Mahatma Gandhi

Reply submitted in MS

Posted on | May 13, 2014 | No Comments

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688

949-683-5411, fax 949-766-7603

orly.taitz@gmail.com

PRO SE PLAINTIFF IN MS

 

IN THE US DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

 

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ et al                               )     CASE 12-CV-280

v                                                                      )   HON. HENRY WINGATE

Democratic Party of Mississippi et al            )    PRESIDING

 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO THE FIRST AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE ADDITIONAL NEW FACTS AND OPINIONS

Plaintiff Taitz provides a timely reply to the opposition to her First Amended Motion for Leave of Court to File Additional New Facts and Opinions as follows:

 

  1. Request for a Leave of Court to provide the court with additional new information relevant to the case is a proper and an ethical way of contacting  the court in comparison to unethical ex-parte communications utilized by the attorneys  representing the Democratic party, Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi.

In Summer of 2012 this court issued an order, where this court alerted the plaintiffs that attorneys for the defense made an ex-parte communication with the chambers seeking to supplement the record with a decision made by a District judge in Eastern District of California in Grinols et al v Electoral College et al. 12-cv-2997 EDCA

Hon. Judge  Wingate has stated that he did not seek this communication and did not ask the attorneys for the defense for any opinions. The court could sanction the defendants and their attorneys for an unethical ex-parte communication, yet the court was very generous to the defense and allowed the defense to provide a brief with the opinion they sought to submit and allowed plaintiffs to respond.

In her response Plaintiff Taitz advised the court that Grinols case was dismissed on jurisdictional basis, whereby the court believed that the issue of constitutional eligibility is to be decided by the Congress and the presiding judge believed that he had no jurisdiction. Taitz further advised that court that the decision in Grinols was diametrically opposite to the opinion from the same district in a prior case of Peta Lindsey et al v Debrah Bowen, secretary of state of California, where the District Court ruled that the Secretary of State has jurisdiction to throw an ineligible candidate from the ballot and the court has jurisdiction to rule on the merits on this decision. Taitz advised the court that both Grinols and Lindsey cases were awaiting adjudication in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  So, submissions by Taitz were related to the motions to dismiss and the submission by the defense itself.

Taitz provided previously the decision by the lower court and transcript of the statements made by the judge of the panel of the Ninth circuit, where judges expressed their opinion that the Secretary of state has jurisdiction to throw ineligible candidates off the ballot and this function is not preempted by the 20th Amendment. After Taitz submitted her motion for the leave of court, the Ninth Circuit rendered its’ opinion in Lindsey v Bowen 13-15085 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed  the decision by the lower court and which serves as a persuasive opinion for the case at hand as it is directly on point for the controversy in this case.

The court clearly stated: “It’s far from clear that the Twentieth Amendment gives rise to a private right of action. Cf. Golden State transit Corp v City of L.A., 493 U.S. 103. 107 (1989) (Supremacy Clause doesn’t create any enforceable rights). But, even if it does, nothing in the Twentieth Amendment states or implies that Congress has the exclusive authority to pass on the eligibility of candidates for President ”, “… Nothing in its’ text or history suggests that it precludes state authorities from excluding a candidate with a known ineligibility from the presidential ballot” id

Further the court points out : “The Constitution does not require things that are different in fact or opinion  to be treated in law as if they are the same” Plyler v Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted), see also Am Party of Tex. V White, 415 US 767, 781 (1974). Those who can’t legally assume office, even if elected, are undeniably different from those who can. Because including ineligible candidates on the ballot could easily cause voter confusion, treating ineligible candidates from eligible is rationally related to the state’s interest in maintaining the integrity of the election process. See Ventura Mobile home Cmtys. Owners Ass’n v City of San Buenaventura, 371 F 3D 1046, 1055 (9th Cir. 2004)  emphasis added.

This decision is on the point in the case at hand.

Further, the state of Mississippi is probably the only state in the nation where the function of assuring lawful elections and removing ineligible candidates from the ballot is shared by the Secretary of state and the political parties. As pled before, the State of MS directs plaintiffs to submit a challenge to the political party, which is expected to act in good faith and hold a hearing on the issue. Further, if the party refuses to act the plaintiff can proceed in court against both the party and Secretary of state seeking to remove the eligible candidate.   In this case the Democratic party of MS acted with breathtaking malice and refused to even hold a hearing after it received from Plaintiff Taitz evidence showing candidate Obama being the citizen of Indonesia, showing that his legal name was Soetoro or Soebarkah, that he used a stolen Connecticut Social security number and laughable forgeries for IDs.   Democratic Party of MS acted with malice in covering up all of the evidence. Secretary of State was on notice of Obama using fabricated IDs based on the previous case Thomas v Hosemann 08-cv-00241 which was filed by twenty five presidential   electors, which provided the Secretary of state with evidence of forgery in Obama’s IDs.   For this reason plaintiffs filed not only a legal action for Declaratory and injunctive relief, but also a RICO cause of action, as there was malice in the cover up of lack of eligibility and actions by both Hawaiian and Federal defendants in actual complicity to forgery and falsification of records and actions of retaliation against plaintiffs- whistleblowers.

Further, neither the District court, nor the Ninth circuit found lack of standing for ordinary US citizens and supporters of Lindsey, who joined her in the case. This is at issue, as the defense challenged not only the jurisdiction of the court, but also standing.

Additionally, the Ninth Circuit made an important ruling that eligibility of a candidate and the right of the Secretary of State and the court to rule on it, which relates to an election which already past, is not moot as this is the case capable of repetition, yet evading review. “Because the case is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” it is not moot. See Fed Election Comm’n c Wis Right to life, inc, 551 U.S. 449, 462-64 (2007)” id.  This is relevant to the case at hand.

The court finds: “although regulation of who can appear on the ballot “inevitably affects free speech, association and voting rights, Anderson v Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983), we uphold restrictions so long as they are reasonably related to the state’s important regulatory interest(),” Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 358 (1997)  “

“Age requirements, like residency requirements and term limits are “neutral candidacy qualifications…which the state certainly has the right to impose.”

“This burden is amply justified by California’s asserted interest in “protecting the integrity of the election process and voter confusion See Timmons 520 US at364-65” id

“a state has an interest, if not duty , to protect the integrity of its’ political process from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies” See Bullock v Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972). Holding that Secretary Bowen couldn’t exclude Lindsey from the ballot, despite her admission that she was underage, would mean that anyone regardless of age, citizenship or any other constitutional ineligibility would be entitled to clutter and confuse our electoral ballot. Nothing in the first Amendment compels such an absurd result” id.

Yet again this is on the point and directly related to the case at hand as it deals with Obama’s run, while being completely ineligible and asserting his identity and eligibility based on stolen or fabricated IDs.

  1. The defense opposed submission by Taitz of the descending opinion by the Chief Judge of Alabama Supreme court due to the fact that there was no memorandum opinion of the majority. In reply to this opposition Taitz advises the court that in McInnish v Chapman the majority affirmed the ruling by the lower court without an opinion. The docket states “No Opinion”. Moreover, the lower court in the McInnish case did not render an opinion. Chief Justice of Alabama agrees with the Chief Justice of the Ninth Circuit in finding that there is jurisdiction and duty for the Secretary of State to remove an ineligible candidate from the ballot.
  2. Further, in their opposition attorneys for Hawaiian defendants have added new Director of Health, Linda Rosen, as an additional defendant. They did not provide a statute, which would allow them to just list another defendant without the leave of court to do so. Additionally, in the RICO cause of action Taitz will be allowed a financial compensation and treble damages, if she prevails. Taitz never agreed to this substitution, specifically on the RICO cause of action and is seeking from the court an order directing attorneys for Fuddy to provide the court and plaintiffs with the information on the probate of Fuddy estate and advise the probate court that there is an ongoing litigation against Fuddy. Additionally, defense never provided any information whether Linda Rosen saw a birth certificate for Obama, whether she is willing to be complicit and claim that a flagrant forgery is a copy of a document allegedly in her possession. Due to a conflict of interest between the new Director of Health and other defendants there should not be a joint representation of Rosen and Onaka or alternatively the court should rule whether in light of a serious liability in a RICO action, a new Director of Health, who was not privy to prior actions, can be allowed to substitute and can be represented by the same attorney.
  3. Secretary of State claims that the motion for a leave of court to submit additional information is irrelevant, inadmissible and inappropriate argument without providing any clarification why, as such it should be disregarded as an unsupported statement.
  4. Defendant Democratic party challenges submission of additional  documents. Plaintiff Taitz replies that additional documents  are related to RICO cause of action. Defense previously claimed that Plaintiff does not have financial damages needed for RICO. Taitz shows that RICO conspirators were engaged and are still being engaged in retaliation and harassment of Taitz and other civil rights leaders who submitted to court information regarding Obama’s use of bogus IDs. Taitz demonstrated that she continuously suffers financial damages as donations and support are being diverted from her campaign due to the fact that John Does/Jane Does in the RICO conspiracy  created a fraudulent Orly Taitz for Attorney General super PAC web site. These might be the same Jane Does/ John Does who impersonated  Honorable Judge Wingate with an intention to smear his name. Further, Taitz provided e-mail received by her, where individuals claim that there was a falsification of rating/ Google standing results by some executives and one of the legal counsel of Google.com, which affected Taitz’s ability to obtain income on her web site, which directly related to her financial losses per RICO.  As such providing this information was proper.
  5. NTSB response was properly provided to the court as it negated a notion by the defense that Fuddy’s death was an accident. Investigation of the small airplane crash continues and there is a high probability that this was not an accident, but rather a sabotage to get rid of the witness to forgery, to tie the loose ends and as such is important and discovery should be conducted. This is an important issue to consider in relation to motion to dismiss.

CONCLUSION

Based on all of the above the court should grant plaintiff’s motion for a leave of court to supplement additional facts and opinions.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ- plaintiff pro se

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a Reply