Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 34

Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ., BRIAN FEDORKA, LAURIE ROTH, LEAH LAX, and TOM MacLERAN VS. DEMOCRAT PARTY OF MISSISSIPPI, SECRETARY OF STATE MISSISSIPPI, BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA, NANCI PELOSI, DR. ALVIN ONAKA, LORETTA FUDDY, MICHAEL ASTRUE, JOHN DOES, JOHN DOES 1-100

COMES NOW the Mississippi Democratic Party, through its governing entity, the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee (MDEC) and, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby responds in opposition to the motion of Plaintiff Taitz to stay the proceedings (Stay Motion) [Doc. 24] and would show the following: 1.

On April 25, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a RICO case statement within twenty

days i.e., by May 15, 2012. [Doc. 2.] 2.

On April 27, 2012, the Mississippi Secretary of State (SOS) filed a Motion for Judgment

on the Pleadings. [Doc. 8, 9.] Under L.U.Civ.R. 7.4, Plaintiffs responses to the motion were due May 14, 2012. On May 4, 2012, the MDEC filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 15, 18]. As

Fr

ien

such, Plaintiffs responses to the MDECs motion were due on May 21, 2012. Both the SOS and the MDEC raised several jurisdictional bases in support of their motions. 3. On May 11, 2012 two weeks after the SOS filed its motion and one week after the

MDEC filed its motion Taitz, individually, filed a Motion for Remand [Doc. 20]. The MDEC and SOS

ds

of T

he F
1

MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TAITZS MOTION TO STAY [DOC. 24]

og Bo w. co m

PLAINTIFFS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-280 HTW-LRA DEFENDANTS

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 34

Filed 05/23/12 Page 2 of 6

expeditiously filed responses to Taitzs Motion for Remand. [Doc. 21 (MDEC Response) and 22 (SOS Response)].1 4.

On May 16, 2012, Taitz, individually, filed the Stay Motion, seeking to avoid having to file

the required RICO case statement or respond to the Defendants respective motions for judgment on the pleadings filed until (a) the Court rules on her Motion to Remand [Doc. 20] and (b) an answer to the First Amended Complaint (FAC) [Doc. 1-1] is received from the other named Defendants, namely President Obama, Obama for America, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics Alvin Onaka, Hawaii Department of Health Director Loretta Fuddy, and Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue.2 5.

Plaintiffs Brian Fedorka, Lauri Roth, Leah Lax, and Tom MacLeran have neither moved

for stay nor joined Taitzs motion; nor have they filed the required RICO case statement, nor have they responded to Defendants motions for judgment on the pleadings.3 6. Generally, the moving party bears a heavy burden to show why a stay should be granted

absent statutory authorization. Coastal (Bermuda) Ltd. v. E.W. Saybolt & Co., Inc., 761 F.2d 198, 204 n.5 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Grant v. Houser, 799 F. Supp. 2d 673 (E.D. La. 2011) (denying motion to stay where party seeking stay failed to adequately demonstrate grounds for such stay). Taitz has presented nothing that would satisfy that burden.

Fr

ien
2 3

Taitz had already filed a MOTION (Demand) for Immediate Termination of Unlawful Proceedings in the Federal Court and MOTION (Demand) for Sanctions against the Defendant Secretary of State and Defendants Attorney [Doc. 11] on April 30 to which the MDEC and SOS also promptly responded. [Doc. 14 (SOS Response) and 19 (MDEC Response).] The very same day Taitz asked the court to stay proceedings, she filed a Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 25]. As noted in the SOSs Response in Opposition to her motion [Doc. 29 at 4], Taitzs acts of seeking a complete stay to delay [her] obligations to the Court while simultaneously seeking to press forward with other issues clearly demonstrates that the Motion for Stay is only designed to allow plaintiff Taitz to sidestep her outstanding obligations to the Court, and not for any legitimate purpose. Several Plaintiffs purportedly joined Taitz on the FAC. However, Taitz is the only plaintiff to have provided the contact information required under Rule 11. Taitz is the only plaintiff to have filed any pleadings other than the FAC. Taitz is the only plaintiff to have responded to any of the defendants motions. If the case is not first dismissed on other grounds, the MDEC intends to file a motion to dismiss these Plaintiffs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b) in short order.

ds

of T

he F
2

og Bo w. co m

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 34

Filed 05/23/12 Page 3 of 6

7.

First, Taitz argues that her obligations to litigate this action should be stayed until the

remaining named defendants file an answer. See Stay Motion at 4-5. However, as set forth in the MDECs Response in Opposition to Plaintiff Orly Taitzs Motion to Remand [Doc. 21], Taitz has failed to properly serve those defendants and if past is prologue it could be months until some or all of the additional defendants are served. See, e.g. Barnett v. Obama, 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN, 2009 WL 3861788, at *19 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) (Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants . . . . While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009 . . . after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service.). As such, a stay pending responses from defendants Taitz has not properly served is functionally equivalent to an indefinite stay, which is disfavored in the absence of pressing need. See, e.g., Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 256 (1936). Taitz has made no attempt to show any pressing need to stay the case. If anything, the very relief she is purportedly seeking declaratory relief

(FAC [Doc 1-1] at 43) demands that the case proceed as expeditiously as possible. 8. Second, Taitz also cites to her pending Motion for Remand [Doc. 20, see also Doc. 11] as a

ground for staying her obligations to comply with this Courts April 24 order and to respond to the pending motions on the grounds that her motions raise jurisdictional issues. See Stay Motion at 3-4. Both the MDEC and the SOS have thoroughly briefed the remand issue [Doc. 14, 19, 21, 22]. It is

Fr

ien

clear that federal subject matter jurisdiction governs the Plaintiffs claims by virtue of the RICO claim pleaded in the FAC. Thus, the MDEC remains confident that this Court will deny Taitzs motions for

remand [Doc. 11, 20]. More importantly however, Taitz ignores the fact that the defendants earlier-filed motions for judgment on the pleadings had already raised multiple jurisdictional issues. [Docs. 8, 9 (SOS

ds

of T

deeming [President] Barack Obama not eligible to be on the ballot as a candidate for the U.S. Presidency

he F
3

og Bo w. co m

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 34

Filed 05/23/12 Page 4 of 6

Motion) 15, 18 (MDEC Motion).] Therefore, resolving all jurisdictional issues in a timely fashion rather than just those raised by Taitz in later-filed pleadings serves the interest of judicial economy. 9. Third, Taitz cites to the fact that a decision has not yet been rendered in her appeal of

another one of her cases as justification for staying this action. See Motion for Stay at 5, citing to Taitz v. Astrue, No. 11-5304 (D.C. Cir., docketed Nov. 25, 2012). However, that appeal arises from a FOIA case brought by Taitz against the Social Security Administration in another District. Taitz appealed after the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed her case, finding (among other things), that Taitzs vehement allegations of fraud consist of mere bare suspicions and thus fail to satisfy the public interest standard required under FOIA. See Taitz v. Astrue, 806 F. Supp. 2d 214, 219-20 (D.D.C. 2011) (internal quotations omitted). While both cases share the common element of containing vehement allegations based on bare suspicions, the FOIA issues raised in that case have nothing whatsoever to do with the present case, which contains no FOIA-related claims. Thus, the pendency of Taitzs appeal in that case provides no justification whatsoever for staying Taitzs obligations to litigate this action in a timely manner. Further, there is no other action pending between the parties in either a Mississippi court or another federal court involving the same subject matter that might cause a stay to be prudent. ~~~

10.

The Court simply cannot in good faith be asked to stay Taitzs filing obligations merely

because there happens to be an appeal pending in another unrelated case that she lost at the District Court level, because she too has filed a motion raising a jurisdictional issue, or because she has failed to properly

Fr
4

ien
in California.4

serve some defendants. Indeed, granting a stay serves no purpose other than allowing Taitz to publicize that she is litigating a case against the President in order to fundraise for her candidacy for the U.S. Senate

See MDEC Response in Opposition to Taitz Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 30] at 3 n.3.

ds

of T

he F
4

og Bo w. co m

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 34

Filed 05/23/12 Page 5 of 6

11.

Due to the straightforward nature of this response, the MDEC respectfully requests that the

Court waive any requirement that it file a separate memorandum of authorities.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee hereby prays that Plaintiff Taitzs motion for stay be denied and that she be required to forthwith (a) file her RICO statement and (b) respond to the respective motions for judgment on the pleadings of the Secretary of State and the Democratic Party.

THIS the 23rd day of May, 2012.

Fr

ien

GARFIELD & TEPPER 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2326 (310) 277-1981 (310) 277-1980 Email: scottjtepper@msn.com

ds

OF COUNSEL: BEGLEY LAW FIRM, PLLC P. O. Box 287 Jackson, MS 39205 (601)969-5545 (Telephone) (601)969-5547 (Facsimile) Email: sbegley1@bellsouth.net

of T

he F
5

og Bo w. co m
Respectfully submitted, THE MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE By: /s/ Samuel L. Begley Samuel L. Begley (MSB No. 2315) By: /s/ Scott J. Tepper Scott J. Tepper (Admitted pro hac vice)

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 34

Filed 05/23/12 Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on the date set forth hereinafter, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following: Harold E. Pizzetta, Esq. Justin L. Matheny, Esq. Office of the Attorney General 550 High Street, Suite 1200 P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205

Orly Taitz, Esq. 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 And to the following persons by email: Brian Fedorka Bfedorka82@gmail.com Laurie Roth drljroth@aol.com

Leah Lax Leahlax1234@aol.com Tom MacLeran mac@macleran.com

THIS the 23rd day of May, 2012.

/s/ Samuel L. Begley_________ SAMUEL L. BEGLEY

Fr

ien
6

ds

of T

he F

og Bo w. co m