Taitz Finds a Client Crazier Than She Is

Orly Taitz has done the seemingly impossible: Found a client to represent who is even more of a raging nutball than she is. She’s filed a lawsuit on behalf of Keith Russell Judd seeking an order to prevent the electoral college from certifying President Obama as the winner of the election.

Dentist and lawyer Orly Taitz is suing Vice President Joe Biden and the U.S. Congress to stop the Electoral College from re-electing President Barack Obama. She made the announcement Wednesday on her website.

Taitz is representing federal prison inmate Keith Judd in the case filed before the U.S. District Court in Sacramento Monday.

Who is Keith Judd? Oh boy, you’re gonna love this. He’s in federal prison right now after being convicted on two counts of “mailing a threatening communication with intent to extort money or something of value.” He’s serving a 17 year sentence. According to Wikipedia, he’s filed 36 appeals of his conviction, none of them successful. While in prison, he ran against Obama in the West Virginia Democratic primary earlier this year and got more than 40% of the vote. That’s the basis of the lawsuit, that he would have won if Obama was ineligible to be on the ballot.

And as Dana Milbank notes, Judd “goes by the nickname “Dark Priest” and has an extremely long mullet” and “lists himself as a past member of the Federation of Super Heroes.” So he’s got that going for him, which is nice. I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship, but a very short court case. Like every other case Taitz files, it will be dismissed almost immediately.


  1. blf says

    Federation of Super Heroes

    I have no idea if its the same collection of apparent nutters or not, but does seem to be an International Federation of Super Heroes (iFOSH):

    Comprised of more than 20,000 leaders in 100 countries, The International Federation of Super Heroes (IFOSH) is the world’s largest network of Superheroes on the planet. IFOSH connects all members to exchange ideas, pursue learning and share strategies to achieve personal growth and professional success. …

    Strangely, there are no obvious updates to the site since c.2010. I knew the world was in bad shape, but there’s been no time to update the rabid audience of any recent successes?

    (Not sure here if “success” is preventing or promoting yet another world problem.)

  2. slc1 says

    When oh when is the California Bar Association going to disbar this dingbat? I realize that she supplies bloggers like Mr. Brayton with much comic fodder but enough is enough.

  3. says

    “Dentist and lawyer … federal prison inmate … member of the Federation of Super Heroes …”??

    I’m finding it harder and harder to avoid the conclusion that you make this stuff up so we all spray coffee on our monitors.

    Do you by any chance have shares in a company that makes screen cleaners?

  4. greg1466 says

    I think my biggest takeaway is that all of the jokes I’ve heard about West Virgina pale in comparison to the apparent reality.

  5. shouldbeworking says

    Some of my more sane ancestors came from West Virginia. Wait…. Is there any correlation between those facts?

  6. says

    Jeez W. Virginia Democrats almost almost voted for him to be a presidential candidate. WTH!? There are apparently some really stupid voters there.

  7. matty1 says

    He was in prison and he got 40% of the vote against a sitting president? Sounds like there’s a lot more than two crazy people.

  8. says

    I picked this up from Orly’s site:

    Arizona Republican Party Chairman Tom Morrissey, who questioned President Barack Obama’s eligibility to president earlier this week, told a Phoenix radio station he’s not a birther, then said Obama’s birth certificate “is not a real document.”


    Uh …. riiight! But then there is this:

    Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), who has vetoed birther legislation in the state, said she does not agree with Morrissey or his allies in the Electoral College.

    What can you say about a politician who is more crazed than Jan Brewer?

  9. dmcclean says

    Shouldn’t he be suing the WV Democratic party seeking to enjoin them from putting Obama on the ballot for the general election? Seems to me there is a timeliness problem here.

  10. says

    Since when can convicted felons run for president? Or is it that they can run but cannot BE president?
    I expect that a lot of the 40% in W. VA who voted for Judd were Republicans, not to make him win over Obama, but because of his total craziness. I can here them now: “Well hell, he’s one of us!”

  11. Reginald Selkirk says

    I wonder if Taitz is smart enough to demand an upfront fee on this one, rather than working on contingency.

  12. Reginald Selkirk says

    He was in prison and he got 40% of the vote against a sitting president?

    In the primary. You might want to look into details like what the turnout was for the Dem primary with an incumbent Dem president running for re-election, and whether WV allows voting across party lines or same day party re-affiliation in primaries.

  13. ragingapathy says

    “So he’s got that going for him, which is nice.”

    On his deathbed, he’ll receive Total Douchiness. If he hasn’t already….

  14. thomasmorris says

    Eugene Debs ran for president in 1920 on the Socialist Party platform, and won 3.4% of the national vote – in spite of the fact that he was in the middle of a 10-year prison sentence at the time.

    He was in prison for the horrendous crime of speaking out against Woodrow Wilson, the war, and the draft.

    I don’t really have any point for sharing this, other than to point out that there is precedent for someone running from prison. Of course, there’s a big difference in that Debs actually had integrity and intelligence (at least he seemed to, based on the little I know of him), while this guy is almost surely just an idiot.

  15. baal says

    To some degree, once you’ve flown over the cookoo’s nest, dropped a few screws, and are one orange short of bushel, it stops mattering. Most flavors of loony or loopy wind up tasting the same.

  16. Nemo says

    @reverendrodney #13:

    Since when can convicted felons run for president?

    Since when can they not? There’s nothing about that in the Constitution.

    Article 2:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Amendment 22:

    No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.

    Those are the only limitations I’m aware of.

  17. says

    West Virginia has semi-closed primaries that permit unaffiliated or minority-party registrants to vote in either primary election. That said, by far the greater issue is that WV is deeply Blue Dog. The state Democratic Party essentially consists of Republicans who support blue-collar unions. Election races are contests to see who can fellate the coal industry the longest and hardest. People in the southern half of the state are so coal-blinded that they literally can’t conceive of an association with any other major industry, and they blame Obama entirely for the soft coal market. It remains to be seen how the natural gas boom will affect the overall ideology; the northern half of the state is already the more liberal and is where gas wells are popping up like weeds.

  18. martinc says

    Judd’s a criminal who has filed 36 unsuccessful appeals against his conviction. He ran against Obama. He has a mullet, and a superhero identity. Is he crazy to do these things? Well, he might as well do them, because he has nothing else to do, right? So I can’t see, Ed, how you justify the claim that this guy is crazier than Taitz. He’s probably just bored.

  19. dmcclean says


    I think you are missing Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, which reads in relevant part:

    “”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…”

    But along with the two you mentioned, those are the only restrictions I know of, and this one only applies in really weird circumstances which I don’t think have ever occurred.

  20. Vicki says

    The Wikipedia article explicitly notes that the Senate chose not to disqualify Hastings from holding federal office in the future. (It also goes into Hastings’s legal challenge to his impeachment conviction, and points to Nixon v. United States on the matter of jurisdiction: basically, it doesn’t matter that the impeachment was flawed, because the Supreme Court has ruled that the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate decisions on impeachments.)

Leave a Reply