VERY IMPORTANT! This is a Draft (& Dr. Orly Taitz may have already re-written with corrections) Bill Z
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
CASE # 2012-260
OPPOSITION TO AN ATTEMPT BY THE DEFENDANT SECRETARY OF STATE TO REMOVE THE CASE TO THE FEDERAL COURT
WHILE THE CASE IS PENDING IN THE SUPREME COURT
PETITION TO EXPEDITE REASSIGNEMENT OF A STATE JUDGE AS A SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE ELECTIONS CONTEST. REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FROM PLACEMENT OF CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT DUE TO USE BY OBAMA OF A FORGED BIRTH CERTIFICATE, STOLEN CONNECTICUT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER 042-68-4425 AND USE OF A LAST NAME WHICH IS NOT LEGALLY HIS
REQUEST FOR ASSIGNMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE OR A PANEL OF JUDGES AS A SPECIAL JUDGE DUE TO URGENCY OF THE CASE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY
Opposition to removal to the Federal Court
Background of the case
Case at hand was filed in the Hinds county Circuit court. This is an elections challenge case. It was filed after plaintiff Orly Taitz (Hereinafter “Taitz”) filed an elections challenge with the Democratic party of Mississippi. (hereinafter “Party”)
The challenge provided the party with sworn affidavits from multiple witnesses, including senior deportation officer from the Department of Homeland Security showing that Barack Obama is using forged identification papers as the basis of his eligibility and legitimacy for the US Presidency. the evidence also showed that in his mother’s passport records and in his school registration in Indonesia Obama was listed under different last names: Soetoro (last name of his step father) and Soebarkah. there is no evidence of him ever changing his name legally to Obama. therefore he is intending to be on the ballot under a name that is not legally his.
Democratic party did not respond and the plaintiff Taitz filed an election challenge with the Hinds county circuit court.
Such challenge was forwarded to the Supreme Court of MS and Honorable Presiding Justice Jess Dickinson appointed a special judge Honorable Judge Coleman.
Judge Coleman simply ignored the complaint and did not respond for a month until the primary election was over and by doing so simply summarily denied the election challenge at hand as far as the primary election was concerned. the Plaintiff was de facto denied her First Amendment right for redress of grievances, as the election challenge that was supposed to be heard expeditiously was marooned on judge Coleman’s desk for a month without any action.
Plaintiff had to bring a general election challenge. She wrote to the counsel for the Democratic party Samuel Begley and advised him that she is extending her challenge to the general election.
For the second time defendant Democratic Party of Mississippi acted in bad faith and did not respond.
Meanwhile Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa county, AZ held a press conference, where he confirmed all of the findings by Taitz and her investigators.
A citizen and a registered voter in the state of Mississippi Brian Fedorka joined Taitz as a co-plaintiff. Several Presidential candidates registered with the federal elections committee joined Taitz as co-plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, which extended the original elections challenge filed prior to the primary election, to the general election.
Defendants Secretary of State and Democratic party of Mississippi filed their answers to the complaint.
Judge Coleman
did not respond to Taitz’s requests to either sign subpoenas for witness testimony and production of documents or to grant Taitz pro hac vice, so that she can draft subpoenas and submit them to the clerk of the court for signatures.
At the same time judge Coleman
immediately responded to the e-mail by the defendant’s attorney Begley, where Begley asked judge Coleman to waive the formalities and override the clerk of the court in granting a pro hac vice to an out of state attorney to join four other attorneys working on the case on behalf of the defendants.
Judge Coleman was accommodating the (pro-Obama) defendants, while yet again taking away from the Plaintiffs nearly all means of redress of grievances by stalling their discovery.
Taitz filed an interlocutory appeal and motion to reassign to another judge. While the case is pending in this court, Attorney general representing the Secretary of state is attempting to wrestle jurisdiction from this court and remove the case to a
more friendly to defendant Obama Federal Court, while there is
no legitimate reason for the state attorney general and for the state Secretary of State to do so.
DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVIDE ANY PRECEDENTS OR STATUTES ALLOWING HIM TO REMOVE A CASE TO FEDERAL COURT, WHILE IT IS PENDING IN THE SUPREME COURT.
While there are cases of removal of a case from lower courts, there was no authority given for a removal
from the Supreme court.
The case at hand is currently pending adjudication in the Supreme Court.
Defendant Secretary of State simply wrote a note to the supreme Court stating that he is removing the case to the Federal court. In the federal court he is rushing with a motion to rule on the pleadings.
Defendant did not provide any authority or precedent allowing him to remove a case while it is pending adjudication in the Supreme court of the state. Absent any statutes or precedents such attempt of removal is invalid and unlawful.
DEFENDANT DID NOT SHOW ANY LEGITIMATE STANDING FOR THE REMOVAL
A case can be removed from a lower state court to the Federal court if there is diversity of Jurisdiction or the main question of the case is a federal case.
Plaintiff Fedorka and defendants’ Secretary of State and the Democratic Party of Mississippi are residents of Mississippi, therefore there is no diversity and the
Defendants did not even plead diversity.
Defendant pleads as a basis for removal, is the fact that a federal statute, RICO, was added in the First Amended complaint, however defendant Secretary of State is not even a defendant under RICO statute. as such the defendant secretary of State, who submitted to the Supreme Court of Mississippi a notice that he is removing this case to the Federal Court, not only d
id not provide any authority, which allows him to remove the case from the Supreme Court, he
did not show that he has any standing to do so, as he is not a defendant under the cause of action, which he is citing as the basis for removal.
DEFENDANT SECRETARY OF STATE AND DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY ARE NOT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH, BUT ARE RATHER BEING COMPLICIT IN DESIRE TO SHIELD DEFENDANT OBAMA AND HIS ACCOMPLICES FROM LIABILITY FOR OBAMA’S USE OF FORGED IDENTIFICATION PAPERS AND ELECTIONS FRAUD
Attorney General of Mississippi, Democrat Jim Hood, who is representing the Defendant Secretary of State is
currently attempting to usurp the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, which is currently reviewing this case as an interlocutory appeal, and have the case heard in the Federal court, on a more friendly turf for defendant Obama.
There was no legitimate reason for the Secretary of State to remove the case to the Federal court.
Secretary of State is claiming that it removed the case due to the fact that the First Amended Complaint contains a question of federal law, which is RICO.
This argument is completely without merit as Secretary of State is not a defendant in the Rico causes of Action. Secretary of State is only a nominal defendant in two other causes of action: Declaratory relief and Injunctive relief, whereby the court is asked to adjudicate on the issue of Obama’s use of forged documents and a stolen Social Security number and declare that he is not eligible to be on the ballot and order to enjoin Obama from being on the ballot in the general election.
Both the Secretary of State of Mississippi and the Attorney General of Mississippi are
state elected officers, therefore they should expect to be sued in the state court, so it is reasonable to believe that it is preferable for such officers to seek adjudication in the state court by elected state judges and not by federal appointees.
Additionally, the main purpose of the Secretary of State is to
conduct lawful elections.
There is no legitimate reason for the Secretary of State
to oppose the Plaintiffs at all, as the Plaintiffs are seeking to uphold lawful elections and halt elections fraud. It would be reasonable for the Secretary of State not to waste taxpayer’s money on any opposition at all and simply file a stipulation that they will follow the findings of the presiding judge, who is the trier of the facts. This is not the fight of the Secretary of State at all.
Other defendants were served. If the court finds that Obama is indeed using forged identification papers and is using the Social Security number that was not assigned to him, and a name that is not legally his, than defendant Obama, who was served with the complaint would have an opportunity to provide evidence in his defense.
There is no legitimate reason for the Secretary of State to oppose this action and to remove the case to the Federal court.
It is clear that the defendant Secretary of State and his attorney are simply
being criminally complicit and are aiding and abetting Obama in
defrauding the state by fighting to cover up flagrant forgery and elections fraud.
Supreme Court of Mississippi should not allow it and should deny removal o the case to the federal court rule in favor of opposition to removal and issue a declaratory relief deeming the case to be improperly removed to the Federal court by the Secretary of State
without any legitimate purpose and with malice.
PLAINTIFFS WILL BE PREJUDICED IN THE FEDERAL COURT.
Federal courts are courts of special jurisdiction and jurisdiction is always before the court.
As it is, the case at hand is a difficult case to prosecute for the Plaintiffs due to the explosive nature of the case and due to the fact that the Plaintiffs are bringing forward
evidence of flagrant criminality on part of the sitting U.S. President.
State courts have some measure of autonomy from the federal government.
Federal courts are a
part of the Federal government, with defendant Obama at the helm of the government.
All of the Federal judges are
political appointees, while the
state judges are elected by the people and can be recalled by the people.
The salary of the federal judges come from the
federal treasury.
There were some prior occasions when federal judges used their position to intimidate and harass Plaintiffs in this case. In one case a federal judge attempted to silence plaintiff Taitz with sanctions. Taitz did not cave in and ultimately
she was vindicated as recently sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa county confirmed all of her findings.
PLAINTIFFS WILL BE GREATLY PREJUDICED IN THE FEDERAL COURT, WHILE
DEFENDANT WILL NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE REMANDING TO THE STATE COURT.
On the other hand there is no prejudice to defendant Secretary of State, if the case is heard in the state court and the removal is denied, as Secretary of State is a
state elected official and should expect to have against it prosecuted in the state court.
If other parties wish to remand, if they feel that their rights will be affected, it will be up to them to claim it. Attorney General of Mississippi is not representing other parties and should
not be acting as their private criminal defense attorney, quite the opposite, his main job description is to prosecute the criminals and he should start doing his job.
Lastly, the case revolves around the state elections law. The subject matter of this case is the state elections law. RICO is secondary, as such federal jurisdiction is only ancillary to the main subject matter of the case.
Attorney General of the state of Mississippi and the secretary of state are
de facto misappropriating and embezzling the taxpayer funds by acting as a de facto private criminal defense attorney for other parties.
As stated previously, defendant Secretary of State is named only in his
ministerial duty to comply with the declaratory relief to be issued by the presiding judge. Defendant Secretary of state is simply engaging in embezzlement of the taxpayer funds and misappropriation of the taxpayer funds by using those funds to draft pleadings and argue against RICO actions
brought against other defendants.
Secretary of State and his attorney took upon themselves to argue as private attorneys for other parties. There is no mandate in the state constitution, which would allow the Attorney General of the state and the Secretary of State to act as private criminal defense attorneys for the other parties and shield other parties from litigation, where other parties are flagrantly violating the laws of the state of MS.
Plaintiffs are seeking a mandate from the Supreme Court of the state not to act as a private criminal defense attorney for parties violating the laws of the state of Mississippi and limit their participation in the case to responding to the causes of action, where the Secretary of State is a respondent.
Time is of the essence need to expedite appointment of the presiding special state judge and hearing on the cause of action for Preliminary injunction.
This is the most important case which will be ever heard by this court. This is the case of an individual using forged identification papers as a basis of his identity in order to defraud the people of the state and get on the ballot and in the White House for four more years.
Complaint and the motion for reassignment contain exhibits 1-13 that clearly show forgery in Obama’s identification papers.
Most powerful is the DVD of the witness testimony and the press conference by Sheriff Arpaio.
The criminality is so flagrant that it is akin to taking of any and all dignity from the citizens of the state it is akin to Obama simply spitting in the face of the citizens of the state, hoping that the Secretary of State, the Attorney General of the state and the judges are all so
utterly corrupt that he can get away with that.
Issuing a preliminary injunction would not prejudice any of the defendants, as if Obama was not eligible, no right would be infringed. If by some miracle he is eligible, he will have an opportunity to redress his grievances by presenting his valid identification papers.
On the other hand, preliminary injunction will protect the plaintiffs from further harassment and intimidation and will protect the citizens and the voters of the state from the biggest elections fraud in the history of this nation.
Section 23-15-951 does not specify what happens when a judge resigns. It is clear that another state judge may be assigned, however there is no prohibition from one of the Supreme Court judges being assigned. Plaintiffs believe that assignment of a Supreme Court judge would expedite the process and would expedite the resolution of this case of great importance. (ed/ BZ)
CONCLUSION
1. removal to the federal court should be denied, as the case is pending before the Supreme court and the jurisdiction is in the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
2. if the case is considered to be removed, a declaratory relief should be issued remanding the case to the state court
3. the case should be expedited.
4. a justice of the Supreme Court can be appointed as a presided judge on this case due to the importance of the case
5. a preliminary injunction should be granted preventing Obama from appearing on the general election ballot until the issue of his forged identification papers is fully adjudicated and the issue of the permanent injunction is decided.
In the alternative an emergency hearing should be scheduled
with defendant Obama in attendance with valid original identification papers or valid certified copies, which can be used to examine the originals on file.
Respectfully submitted
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
04.27.2012
