Here is our boots on the ground thread for tomorrow's hearing so we can find it easily once the hearing starts in case we get a little minute to sneak out with an update.

And for those keeping the home fires burning, the current plan is a hen party tonight, possibly over gyros and beer. Yes, you WILL be discussed.

11:00 am meetup tomorrow at Two Sisters Kitchen for sustenance before the BIG SHEW at 1:00.

Sporadic, if at all, hit-and-run updates until after we adjourn for the day.

A bite to eat while re-hashing the day's events and burning up the lap-tops with reports, then a meetup at the studio with laptop and skype for RC Radio.

So this is the thread for the food p0rn, shoe reports and gossip?

edit:well shit foggy...I thought you'd started another BOTG thread so I was playing in this one. I'll behave now and not post any food p0rn.

Way trickier than that, my love.

• I started a forum that only the people in Jackson can post in (and me and the greenies, of course).
  
  
• Then I made it so everyone else has "read access only".
  
  
  EVERYONE CAN READ THIS THREAD EXCEPT LURKERS, SO DON'T POST PHONE NUMBERS OR ANYTHING ELSE CONFIDENTIAL!
  
  
  
• Then I moved your post from the thread you started to this thread.
  
  
• Then I deleted the thread you started.
  
  
• Then I added boots to your post and corrected a small spelling error.
  
  
• Then I changed the title of the thread.

I took an oath to use these powers only for good. But I can only be good for so long ...


Not on my account, I hope. I was looking forward to it.

Good Morning, Fogbowsers! BOTG Agent OD here, at OrLena Ground Zero!



With apologies to fashionistas here for imitation UGGs. Beautiful but really cold Jackson morning. No sight of OrLena breakfasting. For someone who has no sensitivity about asking about someone's "papers," the irony of her losing hers is precious. And hopefully a sign of a really shitty day coming for the miscreant.

by Butterfly Bilderberg » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:20 pm
Fifteen minute recess.

First order of business was requests by some plaintiffs to withdraw. All defendants objected. Court wants Lax and Macleran to provide medical proof why they failed to attend when court ordered all parties to be present today. Taken under advisement.

Hawaii defendants' motion to dismiss was argued as well as SOS's MJOP. After the break, plaintiffs to respond to the two motions. Orly asked, "Which two motions?" BB shall be embarassed for her.

From Sugar Magnolia:

Taitz is wearing black stretch pants with " sparkly shit" on the pockets, black heels and a white windbreaker. She apologized for her attire.

The first two attorneys to speak were Mr. Dukes and his (reluctant to be named) associate from Gulfport, representing the Hawi'ian contingent on the Motion to Dismiss Ms. Fuddy and Mr. Onaka. Court takes it under advisement.

Next up Matheney (sp?) for the SecState's Motion to Dismiss, also taken under advisement.

After the break Taitz will respond to the two motions realist mentioned above. ("What motions?" confirms my suspicion she doesn't listen very carefully to what's going on).

There are about 9 supporters on Orly's side; on ours, the 5 BOTG and 2-5 others going in and out, presumed to be local attorneys.

Overheard in the elevator, one of the attorneys joking " I can't wait til they call the psychiatrist to the stand. that is one crazy woman."

More will be revealed.

Another update:

Started 1:04.

Court first took up plaintiffs who wanted to be dismissed.

Asked defendants if they objected. They all did. They want res judicata judgments against these plaintiffs so they don't sue again.

Judge noted that Macleran hadn't provided a doctors note and court is going to issue an order he provide such a note and if it isn't sufficient court will decide what else todo about it.

Taitz argued Tepper intimidated the other plaintiffs and sent them his demand letter (he didn't) and that they were all sick and should be dismissed.

Judge took it under advisement.

Argument then began. Walter Dukes went first for the hawai'i defendants. Justin Matheny then argued for the SoS.

The court is on a 15 minute recess (at 2:13) and wants Taitz to respond to those arguments and then will turn to Begley and Tepper.

On Good Authority.

Butterfly Bilderberg:

Second quick break.

Orly has now changed her argument to claim that she is suing the Hawai'ians individually and not in their official capacities. Mr. Dukes said that she failed to sue them as individuals because she served them through their work, and so official capacities, through which they have immunity.

Orly counters that the fact that the Hawai'ian AG was not in court but that Onaka and Fuddy hired Mr. Matheny and associate is proof that they weren't sued officially but as individuals.

Mr. Dukes said their representation agreement was with the Hawai'ian AG. Orly went white. The court ordered Mr Dukes to file a Motion to Dismiss on this point by Tuesday, Orly to respond two days later.

(Muddled notes here.)

SoS next.

Court to Orly: Point me to the statute that says the SoS can be ordered not to certify the vote.

As Orly goes through several statutes, Mr.Matheny brings out copies of each one and says "oops, it's not here. Nope, not in this one, either." (In a lawyerly way,not flippantly) The court cannot enjoin certification through these.

Mr Matheny pointed out that the certification is only to the numbers anyway, and not the validity. Is Secretary of State's only statutory duty. And besides Mr. Rmoney won MS, so if she enjoined certification, it would be against Rmoney, not Obama.

Court: "None of your relief gives you what you want."

More to follow at next break. It's 4:30 their time, the court indicated it might go as late as 6pm.

The hearing was finally adjourned at 6:00. I missed the last 20 minutes of it but BB can fill you in. I'm sure it was interesting.

This time around, it's probably a good thing there were several of us there because I'm not sure one person could have kept up with it all for 5 straight hours. We had at least one state Senator, a bunch of lawyers and one great guy who showed up because of the Dem Party facebook post. Orly was in fine form today too.

We'll be on RC radio tonight and I'm sure we'll cover stuff that we forget to write about and vice versa, but I'm too tired to type right this minute. We'll be posting some this evening I'm sure but it will take a bit to get it all posted.

Can you tell I'm so tired I'm punch drunk?

Court is adjourned. BOTG headed for the studio to type up VOLUMINOUS notes and get ready for RC's show. Mr. Tepper winging his way home, stops in DFW so may be able to call in. Maybe not.

Some brief, non-chronological notes from W4:

Orly brought up the Fogbow and OFA as RICO organizations, she mentioned a certain rooster by name, as well as Scott, as members. And that Patrick guy with the Facebook page.

There were lots of objections at the beginning of the hearing and then they all decided to sit back and let her talk dig a bigger hole hang herself. Her favorite excuse all day long was that she didn't know what was in her briefs because she (say it with me) Lost Her Luggage.

The MDP had a presence at the hearing with 5+ attendees. Everyone was well behaved. Well, sort of. Apparently, the Fogbow contingent just cannot shut up, even with a certain 4 shushing them.

Mr. Tepper was admonished by the judge for saying "so-called experts". I know, WTF? Clarification:he called them "buffoons"

Multiple motions were ordered for next week. It's not quite over.

All will be revealed tonight. Tune in to REALITY CHECK RADIO at 9EST/8CST/6PST. (Corrected from upside down land)

I have it on Good Authority that one of the attorneys is going to call in. And it ain't TWLITHOTU.

BB, W-4, and I are at Sugar Magnolia's studio calling in Chinese and prepping for RCRadio.

Orly took the right front table, which I believe was the correct table since the jury box was on the left.

I have a few points about the hearing. Orly was in all black and was wearing her hair straight. There was no hair flipping and her hair maintained it's look. Orly was able to get a web enabled laptop after the break. One of the flying monkey's must have been a lawyer with the court who had permission to bring in a laptop.

Even though she lost her luggage with much of her paperwork, she still had a binder with 3-400 pages of zibits.

By the end of the hearing I was half expecting the judge to have Orly committed and examined. She went on and on about how everything that happened to her had to be a part of a conspiracy to prevent her from proving that Obama was run a racketeering organization designed to usurp the Presidency and destroy the country.

After the movants argued the two motions to dismiss (Hawaii defendants and Miss, A/G), the judge asked Orly if she was prepared to respond to the two motions she asked the judge "what motions".

While discussing the letters from McLaren and Lax, Orly stated that they asked her about how to proceed and she stated "I advised them".

The judge treated Fedorka(?) as a represented plaintiff. He never asked him to respond to a motion or objection with the exception of the very first issue on dismissing other plaintiffs. When he was asked about that, he looked to Orly and she shook her head no. He replied "no" (he didn't have an objection to their withdrawal).

Orly's fact of the day was the revelation that there has never been a piece of mail stamped with a two digit date code, with the exception of President Obama's Social Security Application, during the entire 245 years in which the Postal Service has been using date stamps.

I must have missed the testimony from an expert on the history on the U.S. Postal Service.

Now that we've covered most of the legal high points, how about some fashion!

Orly was a vision in her one-size-obviously-doesn't-fit-all black stretch jeans. They actually looked more like those "pajama jeans" things than anything, and were an affront to good asses worldwide. They also had sparkly shit on the butt pockets. And 2 inches too short due to her height. Slight flare at the ankles without being actual bell-bottoms. They would probably have been long enough if she had bought the correct size so the legs didn't bunch up and the crotch and knees. Horizontal folds on pants are never a good look. Fairly nice black stretch top with lapped shoulders and sweetheart neckline. The "sweetheart" part refers to the cut of the shirt, not the contents. 3/4 length sleeves with some really cool small buttons at the bottom of the sleeves. The same black pumps, scuffs and all, that she wears with her lawyer suit. Not an attractive combination under any circumstances.

(For those of you with weak stomachs, now is a good time to skip ahead.) The shirt was....ummm.....form fitting. You could see the bulges above and below her bra straps and at the waist. From the back, she looked a bit like a stack of Firestones. Not exactly fat, but definitely not rib cage either.

I also noticed that her shoulders are obviously more sloped without the Rosy Grier shoulder pads. Strangely enough, she seemed much more relaxed and at ease in street clothes than she did in her lawyer uniform. From a strictly visual perspective, she almost looked and acted normal. Her flatiron/hot rollers/blow dryer/rats/egg beater apparently went missing in her "disappeared" luggage. (As an aside, I would have made money today if someone had paid me everytime she said "My luggage disappeared." I so wanted to shout "ding, ding, ding" everytime she said disappeared, like we have gremlins at the airport here or something. It was all very mysterious and I was surprised she didn't just come right out and accuse Mr. Tepper of absconding with it from the baggage carousel.) Her hair looked pretty good and other than tucking it behind her ears and then pulling it out (No snark on that one because I do it myself. It's a 'thing' for hair of a certain length.) she didn't fiddle with it a whole lot and it stayed relatively presentable looking throughout the hearing.

And in the 'small favors' department, Mr Fedorka was wearing a suit jacket this time. I'm not sure I could have taken 5 hours of his prior attire of a less-than-totally-opaque white dress shirt. He did appear to be wearing the same black pants though.

Her peanut gallery consisted of 7 people total. The same woman who was 'assisting' her at the last hearing without, apparently, being an official assistant. Not sure what that relationship is but I suspect she's an attorney or paralegal or something. She's the one who provided the laptop to Orly partway through the hearing. Dressed in khakis, running shoes, long sleeve t-shirt and....wait for it....a grey sweatshirt hoodie. (Has the woman never heard of George Zimmerman?) No testimony on her luggage disappearing so I'm not sure what her excuse is. She was sitting with another guy in jeans and a plaid shirt (I know, you're surprised, right?) in the front row. Behind them in the second row was a guy in jeans and running shoes (did Walmart have a sale this week?) and a faded navy Polo-type pullover.

The third row was the interesting group. Another assortment of people, 1 man, 3 women, who she apparently recruited from a church since they were all in what passes for Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes in small town MS. The ubiquitous polyester pants on two of the women (I'm saving the third for her own description. Strangely fascinating to me.) and the literally worn-through-at-the-cuffs suit and old-man nylon socks on the man. He was also, oddly enough, wearing a very bright blue tie that either had an "artistic" detail across the bottom, or he had ranch dressing with his lunch. The oldest of the three women was wearing a zebra print shirt with ruching and ruffles that would have looked great on my size 2, 25 year old daughter. On the 70ish woman with the fighting-squirrels neck, not so much. Othopedic sandals completed the ensemble. Very pretty olive green jersey shirt on the woman in the middle.

And my personal favorite, the woman who paired a forest green sweater with a kelly green turtleneck. Women are rarely color-blind, so I'm going with bad taste for mixing a cool green with a warm green. That's never a good idea. She had on a. A-line boucle skirt that wasn't bad, but she was wearing black hose!! Do they even sell those anymore or did she have to dig them out of the back of her drawer? And these very strange boots. Too high to be ankle length, but not as high as cowboy boots. And very wide at the top. Mid-heel stilettos in case the rest of it wasn't bad enough. And she spent the ENTIRE TIME picking at imaginary hairs and threads, and adjusting her clothing, and re-draping her necklace. It was oddly mesmerising to watch her. She's apparently incapable of closing her mouth too, or was on something that has the side effect of causing gaping mouth syndrome.

Assorted spectators coming and going in the back rows on her side, one of whom was a MS State senator and a woman who I think is one of his aides. He had on a gorgeous blue silk tie.

Assorted curious attorneys on "our side" too that were coming and going periodically. The only woman attorney who made an appearance was in a fabulous black knit and leather suit that I would kill for. Her above-the-knee leather boots were the perfect choice.

I counted a total of 11 different on-lookers who made an appearance for varying periods of time.

A special shout out to Mr. Matheny who made his appearance in a tweed sport coat, complete with leather elbow patches, khaki pants and topsiders. The touseled hair look works well on him.

So, there you have it. A truly great day spent with other FBers. And off to brunch in an hour or so for more laughter and re-hashing. And then a nap. Maybe two. I'm too ollllld for this!!!

This was my first experience watching super-competent lawyers in action. At points they were lounging about in their chairs, only to suddenly all sit up and start listening intently at something Orly said. (the receipt for the certified mail was one.) At another point, they all stood up to object at the same time.

Ways real court is different from TV court #24: instead of calling out "Objection", the real lawyers quietly stand up to be noticed. If the other lawyer keeps going on, only then does the real lawyer say something, like "I'm sorry your honor, but I must object to this." the judge also doesn't let anyone shout.

In her hour or so, Orly was going on and on in Orly conspiracy talk, mentioning (in no particular order of time, seriousness, or internal logic) the sabatoge to her car, her web sites, her tenants, her dental practice; that anyone who had ever heard her "evidence" was obviously part of the misprision of felony RICO conspiracy to commit fraud; that there was a serious of time except that Thanksgiving meant she couldn't work on papers as her kids were coming home. She claimed that federal offices were a franchise and all federal officers had to post a bond for their jobs, including Your Honor. (That was another instance where the real lawyers Turned to each other in disbelief and bewilderment.) She flew to DC on her own money to show William Chatfield the forged Selective Service card. Once she showed him the forgery, he became complicent in fraud after the fact as he had in front of him the evidence. One of the 2 corrupt organizations (something calld Fogbow) even had a whole convention in Phoenix for the sole purpose of planning her downfall. It exists to mock her. Attorney Tepper, a part-time bar investigator for CA abused his authority for the sole purpose of harassing her and to keep her from stopping Mr. Obama. That Judge Carter promised t hat the case would be heard on the merits but abruptly changed. (No mention of his clerk, though.) that Judge Land was either naive or fooled or wanted to help Obama. That Judge Land ruled he was dismissing the case becaus of abstention, but if he wanted to abstain, why was he attacking her? Anyway, Attorney Tepper only brought up Judge Land to make Orly look bad to Your Honor. Major Cook DIED, the man DIED, he wants to know, he was ruined and never vindicated. Literay agent. Indonesian registration. (Judge Wingate asked if she was contending that the registration was forged.) Borders on the COLB. "This court looked at the exhibits in 2008." ( not "this court" meaning Judge Wingate, but the SD of MS.) Not one judge has the backbone to order discovery.

By the end, she was talking faster and higher, deep into conspiracy mode. The attorneys had long ago registered strenuous objections to the defamation of their clients and everyone named, so they sat back in their comfy chairs and let her insanity have free rein. The judge interrupted her whenever she alleged a specific crime against Her personally, such as letters written to her tenants that she was taking part in mutiny and it was dangles dangerous to be in her building. Did she file suit in CA? No, needs discovery to find out who wrote them. She's losing the building because the tenants left, because of the letters. Is there a cause of action in CA? No, but Scott Tepper and his friends were gloating about writing to the Dental Board.

At some point, I stopped taking notes in awe.

Bump..

per request from the herd

Initially put this in the wrong thread, so here it is again.

The promised report on the attornies. (<--- That's a joke.)

Orly and Fedorka were there.

Ok, that covers the opposing counsel so on to the white hats on our side. Mr. Matheney is adorable. He was dressed. He sat front and center and looked adorable.That about covers it other than the fact that he's very impressive as a lawyer. Very few ums and uhs and he seems to be very comfortable and confident when speaking. Not a lot of fumbling with papers or words when presenting his case or responding to questions. He's young (and adorable) but doesn't seem overly excitable. He simply presents his case without a lot of drama. He does a very good job of making stuff clear to us who aren't lawyers and got a minimum of confused looks from the FMs. He is sort of touseled looking, like his clothes are a tiny bit too large, and his shirt wasn't tucked in straight and it wouldn't surprise me if he had a sock on inside out but it didn't detract from his professionalism one bit. He probably drinks domestic beer.

Sam Begley was to Matheney's left at the front table and spent most of the hearing turned sideways with his ankle propped on his knee, leaning back in his comfy lawyer chair.. Obviously comfortable sitting at the defense table. Well dressed in a suit that actually fit across the shoulders. He smiles a lot and you can see it extends to his eyes, even through his round-framed tortoiseshell glasses. He just looks like he really enjoys his job. I peg him for a Scotch man. He's also married to a stunningly beautiful woman who drinks red wine.

Scott Tepper was directly behind Begley, on the far left of the second table. The only blue suit in the room and a beautifully cut suit it was. Not a single fold or wrinkle where it shouldn't be. A dark blue without being a true navy, no stripe (pin or chalk) and I'm guessing summer weight worsted. He was more intense than either Begley or Matheney and spoke more than Begley. He was the perfect dapper California foil to the slightly disheveled looking Matheney. Elegant would not be an inappropriate word. Would not surprise me to learn he drinks pinot noir..

To Tepper's right was Walter Dukes. Dark tweed coat that almost matched his hair. He has a lot of hair too. Thick and unruly, dark brown shot with grey. Strong voice to match the strong appearance and presence. His name fits him perfectly. Deep voice and expansive movements. He was the quickest of the 5 to rise and make an objection. A pre-grey comparison to Matlock would not be out of line. I would pour him a shot of bourbon, straight, no ice, without even asking.

And the mystery man of the group, Drew Holland (I think I have that name right.) Very young, nice suit but not terribly expensive looking. Extremely short, strawberry blonde hair and he should probably consider suits in the brown family rather than the greys. Probaly played college football. He didn't say a word as far as I know, unless he was responding to Dukes. Twice before the hearing started I overheard some introductions between people coming in and Mr Dukes, and both times he simply introduced Holland as "my associate" without giving his name. He did the same when the lawyers identified themselves when the hearing began and the judge had to ask for his name specifically. The term "baby lawyer" came to mind. Physically, I couldn't help but think of Ed McBain's Matthew Hope method of classifying people by looks alone. Everyone is either a pig face or a fox face, based only on physical appearance. Holland was definitely a pig face. Round face, tipped nose, and light lashes. Craft beer or vodka. He was sort of hard to read.

At several points during the hearing, the lawyers looked as if they could have been on the set of a play. It was interesting to watch them lean into each other and whisper, or exchange knowing looks or even to see the smiles cross their faces simultaneously when Orly said something particularly telling or stupid or wrong. The interaction between them was very natural and almost choreographed. Checking computers, referring to papers and quick whispered confrences between first one then the other. A beautifully scripted production, in stark contrast to the plaintiff's table.

Bingo! What about us?

I have to do the reports in chunks and I'm saving the best for last!

Soon to be Boots In The Air. Bush-bye Jackson, you are a cute little town. Very friendly, but deserted on the weekend.

I have been informed that the group of 4 in the third row were from the MS Democratic Party.
Maybe they were the ones from Scott County, but that's just a guess. Also, I've been told the rotating cast of 2 young black females in the very back on Orly's side were curious attorneys with no connection to the case at all, but that hasn't been confirmed. So counting all spectators who cycled through the courtroom at least once, that brings her total count to 3, defense count to at least 21.

As with my report of prior hearings, unless in quotation marks I am paraphrasing.

PART I

The hearing was called to order at 1:05 PM. Appearances were stated:

Plaintiffs:

Orly Taitz and Brian Fedorka, pro se

Defendants:

Justine Matheny, Mississippi Attorney General's Office, on behalf of the Mississippi Secretary of State (and yes, he's adorably cute, and if he weren't wearing a wedding band I would set him up with my daughter)
Samuel Begley, Jackson MS, and Scott Tepper, Los Angeles CA, on behalf of the Mississippi Democratic Party, Obama, Obama for America, Nanci Pelosi, et al.
Walter Dukes and Drew Holland, Gulfport MS, representing the Attorney General for the State of Hawaii on behalf of Dr. Alvin Onaka and Loretta Fuddy

Judge Wingate indicated that there were four motions to be taken up today, but first a housekeeping matter -- the status of the plaintiffs. The judge indicated that he had received letters from plaintiffs Laurie Roth, Leah Lax and Thomas MacLeran. Roth indicated simply that she wished to withdraw from the suit. Lax also wishes to withdraw and asked that her non-presence at the hearing be excused because she has cancer and the treatments make her ill. MacLeran asked to be excused from attending the hearing due to his recent hernia surgery, which he claimed made it inconvenient for him to travel any distance from home; additionally, he lacks the funds to fly to Jackson. MacLeran did not asked to withdraw, but rather, stated that he joined Taitz's opposition to the motions.

The judge expressed his dissatisfaction that neither Lax nor MacLeran provided any proof of their alleged medical conditions that prevented them from appearing.

The Court: "I ordered all parties to appear."

He felt that the least these plaintiffs could do was provide a letter or affidavit from their treating physicians, as well as an affidavit from each plaintiff about why s/he was unable to travel to Jackson. Judge Land wanted to hear from Lax and MacLeran -- and their doctors -- directly. The court directed them to supply proof in the form of medical evidence.

The Court: "Failure to convince this Court that he [MacLeran] had a viable excuse for failure to appear will have consequences."

The judge inquired whether the defendants objected to the withdrawal of Roth, Lax and MacLeran. Tepper objected, explaining to the court the basis: These plaintiffs had sued Obama in other courts and, rather than allow them to walk away from this action, the defendants want a dispositive ruling for res judicata purposes to put an end to their suits. Dukes and Matheny joined in the objection. The court asked the two plaintiffs present their positions. Taitz began a soliloquy about Lax, morphing into a complaint about Tepper's demand letter.

Begley: "Objection. That letter came from me, it was a confidential settlement letter."

The Court: [to Taitz] "I only want your views on the withdrawals."

Taitz and Fedorka had no objection. The court reiterated its order that they will have to submit proof of medical condition. The requests to withdraw were taken under advisement.

Hawaii Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Dukes: Brief history of the case. The FAC added his clients as well as additional plaintiffs. Re: the claims against Onaka and Fuddy, "These claims are difficult to understand." Broke his argument into two parts: (1) That there is no jurisdiction over the Hawaii defendants, and (2) the FAC fails to state any claim against them.

No Personal Jurisdiction:

Turning to the jurisdictional argument, the Fifth Circuit in Bush recognizes nationwide service of process in RICO civil suits. Nevertheless, a plaintiff must serve the defendants. Here, there was no personal service upon Onaka and Fuddy. The plaintiffs relied on secondary service. Moreover, what the plaintiffs claim [with regard to the manner that service was accomplished] is different from what actually happened.

Dukes: "We provided an affidavit from an employee, this affidavit is undisputed by the plaintiffs. A Mr. Fenton showed up at the front office of the Office of Health Status Monitoring. Onaka and Fuddy work in another building. A secretary from the office was called to the reception area; Fenton asked if she know who Orly Taitz is. The employee answered "yes" and Fenton handed her two sets of papers and left." She took them back to her office and after reading them she realized what the papers were.

Dukes: The amended complaint alleges that Onaka aided and abetted fraud, alleges RICO. Both Onaka and Fuddy are not proper parties in this action. First, "they are absolutely immune from liability for acts in their official capacity." Second, service was not accomplished. The plaintiffs had three opportunities to serve the summons and FAC: Under the Federal Rules, under the Mississippi Rules, and under the Hawaii Rules. Service was not accomplished under any. "It's easy to name someone a defendant under RICO. However, it offends traditional notions of jurisdiction and fair play" to hail them into a foreign court.

Dukes then moved to strike the scurrilous allegations against the two defendants, as well as the lawyers [referring to the allegations against Ms. Nagamine and attorneys in the Hawaii AG's office].

Dukes: "This goes on state after state. They are harassed by Orly Taitz."

Failure to State A Claim:

Three arguments. "First, the plaintiffs fail to recognize the nexus between these government employees and the agencies they work for. They are immune." The case cited by Taitz in her opposition to the MTD involved criminal RICO, not civil RICO. "Nowhere does she plead beyond supposition. That won't suffice for federal court." He explains that under respondeat superior these employees are acting in their official capacities and cannot be civilly liable under RICO.

Second, a conspiracy involving the agency has not been show. "Nothing of substance."

Finally, "We submit that our motion to dismiss should be granted. Lacking are minimum contacts with the State of Mississippi. However, we don't get to that part because she [Taitz] failed to effect service of process."

PART I - continued

Secretary of State's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Matheny: There are two separate types of claims: State law election claims, and RICO claims.

Election Law Claims:

Matheny: "Things have changed since our motion was filed in April." The primary and general elections have been held. "The SOS believes the [election law] claims are moot. What the plaintiffs are asking for is to take Obama's name off the ballot, order the SOS not to certify the vote. It would make no difference whatsoever if relief were granted. It would not change the outcome of the election. Mr. Romney won Mississippi's electoral votes."

Matheny points to the Gournay case, which held that a plaintiff must hang an election challenge on the statutes. He summarizes: The plaintiffs' claims under section 23-15-961 [relating to the primary] and 23-15-963 [relating to the general eletion] were untimely. Further, a plaintiff cannot go to court to get an injunction to stop the SOS from doing his duty. "Courts don't have jurisdiction to enjoin a SOS from performing a nondiscretionary duty."

Four arguments: First, section -963 is only used to challenge an independent candidate, not a candidate nominated by a major party.

Second, the section -963 claim, too, was untimely. Matheny hands out copies of a timeline he prepared. Original petition was filed February 17. The primary was March 13. On April 1 Taitz emailed a request to remove Obama to Mr. Begley, not to the Mississippi Democratic Party, as required under the statute. But even if that email were considered sufficient, under 23-15-963(4) she had 15 days to file a court petition. That would have been April 14. The FAC [alleging a general election challenge] was not filed until April 19. She missed that deadline. The deadline is jurisdictional.

Third, no $300 bond was filed with the 23-15-963 claim. The bond requirements [for primary challenges and general election challenges] are in separate statutes. They, too, are jurisdictional. "The failure to file a bond is yet another reason the section -963 claims fails."

Fourth, There can be no injunctive relief to enjoin the SOS from nondiscretionary duties. "This also applies to section -963." It is purely ministerial to put the names of the national political parties' nominees on the ballot."

RICO Claim:

First, the FAC states IN BOLD and CAPITALIZED that the SOS is not being sued under RICO. However, Taitz then filed a RICO Statement and asserts a RICO claim. "This goes against their complaint."

Second, the SOS is sued in his official capacity. "This is the same as suing the State of Mississippi. Governmental entities cannot be sued under RICO." He directs the court to the authorities cited in the memorandum supporting the MTD. Must sue a person.

Third, regarding the predicate acts, "according to the jumbled RICO Statement [Taitz] seems to believe that a 2008 lawsuit -- that was dismissed -- put the SOS on notice of Obama's allegedly forged birth certificate, therefore the SOS is part of some big RICO conspiracy." "This is preposterous logic." Under this logic, anyone put on notice of any individual's allegations are part of a RICO conspiracy.

At this point the Court indicated that there would be a 15-minute recess, after which it would hear the plaintiffs' arguments against these two motions.

Taitz: "Which two motions?"