Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
S.D.MISS. ECF 106 - Opposition to Motion for Leave to File New Facts and Opinions

S.D.MISS. ECF 106 - Opposition to Motion for Leave to File New Facts and Opinions

Ratings: (0)|Views: 265|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
Document Number: 106



Docket Text:
RESPONSE in Opposition re [105] MOTION for Leave to File ADDITIONAL NEW FACTS AND OPINIONS filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Begley, Samuel)
Document Number: 106



Docket Text:
RESPONSE in Opposition re [105] MOTION for Leave to File ADDITIONAL NEW FACTS AND OPINIONS filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Begley, Samuel)

More info:

Published by: Jack Ryan on Mar 28, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/28/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 1
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 PLAINTIFFS VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-280 HTW-LRA 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 DEFENDANTS MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF ORLY TAITZ’S “MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE ADDITIONAL NEW FACTS AND OPINIONS” [ECF N0. 105]
COMES NOW the Mississippi Democratic Party, through its governing entity, the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee (“MDEC”), and by and through its undersigned counsel, and hereby responds to the motion of Plaintiff Orly Taitz regarding “Additional New Facts and Opinions” [ECF No. 105], as follows: Plaintiff Taitz, who has been an attorney for over 11 years, in her latest motion seeks to introduce what she describes as three items of “additional evidence and rulings supporting her opposition to defendants motion to dismiss” [sic]. The items in question are neither evidence nor rulings; they are also wholly irrelevant to the disposition of the fully-briefed dispositive motions. Plaintiff first requests that the Court take into consideration the
dissents
 (but not the ruling) from a recently decided Supreme Court of Alabama case, McInnish v. Bennett, No. 1120465, March 21, 2014 [ECF 105-3]. This case interpreted an Alabama statute (§ 17-14-31(a), Ala. Code 1975) that concerns
Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 106 Filed 03/28/14 Page 1 of 4
 
 2 the Alabama Secretary of State’s obligation,
vel non
, to place nominees on the ballot. The dissents that Taitz requests the Court consider are irrelevant to the disposition of any pending motion in this case since they comment on an interpretation of Alabama law and the Alabama Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal. Plaintiff then requests that the Court consider a document that purports to be a transcript of an oral argument in an unrelated case currently pending before the Ninth Circuit, Lindsey v. Bowen, No. 13-15085 [ECF 105-2]. The “transcript” is not an official court document, and was apparently  prepared by an individual with unknown qualifications as a transcriptionist. Beyond that, oral argument is neither evidence nor a ruling. The questions asked by a single judge during oral argument in an unrelated case are irrelevant to the disposition of any pending motion in this case. Plaintiff’s third “ruling” or “evidence” purports to be printouts from a website [ECF 105-1]. The printouts are submitted without authentication and lack even the most basic information (such as the URL) about the website. Notwithstanding plaintiff’s representation, these printouts are neither admissible evidence nor rulings. Even if the more technical defects in the “evidence” are cured, the  printouts are presented with nothing more than conclusory allegations that they are somehow “additional evidence of RICO.” Since the pending motions are based on infirmities in the pleadings, even if this item were evidence it would still be irrelevant to the disposition of any pending motion in this case. MDEC requests that the Court dispense with the requirement of filing a separate Memorandum of Authorities under the Local Rules in support of this opposition as the reasons and authorities supporting its opposition are fully set forth above. FOR THESE REASONS, the undersigned counsel for the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee respectfully requests that the Court enter an order denying Plaintiff Orly Taitz’s “Motion For
Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 106 Filed 03/28/14 Page 2 of 4
 
 3 Leave Of Court To File Additional New Facts And Opinions,” and rule on the dispositive pending motions without further delay. THIS the 28
th
 day of March, 2014. 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
)
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 GARFIELD & TEPPER 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2326 (310) 277-1981 (310) 277-1980 Email: scottjtepper@msn.com
Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 106 Filed 03/28/14 Page 3 of 4

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Jack Ryan added this note
Short and sweet... and accurate.
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->