Well, what a strange day! I don’t mind admitting I guessed wrong about what would happen in the Mississippi Birther lawsuit. A few hours ago I predicted that Judge Henry T. Wingate would go ahead dismiss the whole mess and send Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. packing. But he didn’t. First, he denied her Motion to Remand, which would have sent the suit back to state court. Because Taitz made a Federal RICO claim, the Defendants have the right to be heard in federal court as opposed to state court.
In short, Taitz screwed herself by filing this Amended Complaint, posted by Jack Ryan of the Fogbow:
Ironically, some part of the RICO/Amended Complaint thing came about because Taitz wanted to add in Defendants from certain websites, like Fogbow, who teased her and were a thorn in her side:
Judge Wingate gave her three weeks to properly serve the remaining Defendants in the case. At that time, the Defendants would have time to answer the Complaint. Then, the Court would hear the Defendants’ Motions For Judgment on the Pleadings, which will result in dismissal. Oh For Goodness Sake has the first hand reports from Fogbow secret agents:
In Update 1 to that article, we find:
Taitz is going to try to serve other defendants (those she has named) but the judge also reminded her that she might be multiplying the litigation and could be sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1927. I’m not sure Taitz heard or understood any of that.
This is the same statute which recently resulted in Birther attorney Van Irion being socked for more than $20,000.00 in costs. And the Court was being nice in that one by cutting back his exposure to some degree. I warned Taitz about this possibility in an earlier Internet Article:
This is what sets up the terrible damned-if-she-does and damned-if-she-doesn’t scenario. If Taitz serves the other Defendants with what is obviously a frivolous Complaint, she only increases the potential financial costs to herself. If she doesn’t serve them, then she risks getting dismissed as soon as the Defendants Motions are heard.
I would not be surprised to see her file another Amended Complaint, this time without the Federal RICO claim. If it flies, this would take her out of federal court, and away from the 28 U.S.C. sec. 1927 penalties. If not, the attempt to get away could even raise the costs. The Court could have put her out of her misery today, but chose not to.
Is that a good thing???
Note 1. The Image. This is from the 1924 film, The Silent Flapper.
As Wiki notes:
The film was made in the wake of the tremendous hit Flaming Youth. Originally intended to reunite the cast and crew of Flaming Youth, not everyone was available. The film was made as a comedy with dramatic undertones, while Flaming Youth had been a drama with comic aspects. To cash in on the popularity of Colleen’s “flapper” character, the word “flapper” made it into the title. An additional draw was that the film showed a lot of skin. Sydney Chaplin was, of course, Charlie’s older half-brother. The film was generally well-received as good light entertainment: “…you have been entertained and not caused to think too much.” The film did not match the popularity of Flaming Youth.(An accounting of the earnings of Colleen’s pictures dated December 31, 1928 lists to total earnings,of Flaming Youth ($798,777 by 1928). The Perfect Flapper earned $531,008.56.
Note 2. Flap-Flapper
A state of agitation; a panic
– they’re in a flap over who’s going to take Henry’s lectures
1. (in the 1920s) A fashionable young woman intent on enjoying herself and flouting conventional standards of behavior
2. A thing that flaps, esp. a movable seal inside a toilet tank
– flush the tank to make sure that the flapper is not dropping