From the Docket:
11/05/2012 – [Memorandum Decision & Order] DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED.PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS DENIED. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER SUBMITTED.RFAD/LDH
11/06/2012 – Removed from active docket on 11/06/12.
If you need a break this Election Day, give a listen to Monday night’s show with Jay Ritt, the attorney representing Occidental College, who won sanctions against Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. in Taitz v. Obama, in Orange County Superior Court on November 1. Very interesting discussion of abuse of the legal system, vexatious litigation and Orly’s pitiful legal skills. Scott J. Tepper, co-counsel against Taitz in the Mississippi Ballot Challenge, also has a message or two for Orly Taitz in a remarkably frank discussion of that case. A six-figure sanctions demand appears to be in Orly’s future, after she rejected a settlement offer for a mere $25,000. The brightest bulb, she is not.
Update 11/5: Courtesy of Jack Ryan’s Scribd.
Docket Memos:
Document Number: No document attached
Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. PARTICIPANTS: O. Taitz, plaintiff; S. Begley, S. Tepper, H. Pizzetta, J. Matheny, and W. Dukes, defense counsel. Telephone Conference held on 11/5/2012. A Motion Hearing was set for November 16 at 1:00 P.M., to hear oral argument on the [15] Motion of the Judgment on Pleadings, and [57] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over Dr. Onaka and Loretta Fuddy, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for Relief, Insufficient Process and Insufficiency of Service of Process. All parties are expected to be present at the scheduled Motion Hearing. The Court DENIED plaintiff’s oral motion to allow a witness to testify by phone. Plaintiff was directed to provide the court with the addresses of the other pro se plaintiffs. (TRS)
Document Number: No document attached
Docket Text: NOTICE of Hearing on Motion [57] MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over Dr. Alvin T. Onaka and Loretta J. Fuddy MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for Relief; Insufficient Process; and Insufficiency of Service of Process, [8] MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, [15] MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings : Motion Hearing set for 11/16/2012 01:00 PM in Courtroom 6A (Jackson) Wingate before District Judge Henry T. Wingate (TRS)
–
A Reliable Source reports for The Fogbow:
All parties are on the phone at 10:30, except Taitz.
Court clerk has to call Taitz at 10:35.
After Taitz belatedly joins hearing, Court comes on line. Starts off on JPML matter and pounds Taitz on her defective JPML filing and fact that JPML struck motion. Taitz claims never to have received JPML order of 10-31-12 All other counsel received it and Tepper points out that Taitz is not being candid since (a) she received ECF notice of defendants’ November 2, 2012 filing (Dkt 61) and (b) the JPML also served her as an ECF filer in Central District of California. Taitz then states she may have received something but because she had 10 days to respond she hadn’t opened the e-mail yet. Taitz tries to deflect issue of her lack of candor by talking about forgery of birth certificate and new affidavit (which she has not yet filed), and multiple attacks on Scott Tepper. (Taitz speaks for 5 minutes.)
Court cuts her off and says he was waiting to see what JPML was doing. Now that JPML has rejected the case, Court wants to proceed on the merits and does not intend to take them up by telephone. He notes that he was ready to hear it last Thursday and this morning – and everyone but Taitz was available. (This puts the lie to Taitz’s statement on her website that 3 lawyers weren’t available, unless they are all named Taitz.)
Taitz advises court she is in litigation in California and it is just because she is so busy that the matter could not be heard last week or today. Judge asks Taitz when the motions can be heard. Taitz launches into lengthy statement that she has two weeks to respond (presumably to Hawaii motions to dismiss) and says she will “have an answer” within a week. Taitz also notifies the Court that she plans to file another motion for sanctions, which will include an affidavit from her new Tennessee expert. Because he’s 70, “infirm,” and has to take care of his wife, he doesn’t want to appear, he wants to do it by declaration. Court states it will not take something like that by declaration.
Taitz also goes into rant that she vehemently opposes Tepper participating by telephone because “he sits in his office and has access to Internet and computers” … so it’s not fair. Tepper needs to be in court just like her. (Court did not rule on that issue.) Taitz also vehemently requests to have heard her “more evidence” of fraud and repeats her intention to file a new motion for sanctions. Tepper points out this new motion for sanctions is merely Taitz again multiplying the litigation. Taitz goes off on another rant.
The Court cuts Taitz off and asks for a date certain for hearing on pending motions. All counsel except Taitz agree to November 16, despite some conflicts. Taitz sighs, says she has important family matters [details provided but not reported here], but will “make herself available.” (Heroically.)
Continue reading »
Special note for Birfers:
19. No witness presented by Plaintiffs was qualified as an expert in the field of document authentication.
20. No witness presented by Plaintiffs was qualified to provide an expert opinion as to whether what was purportedly downloaded from the White House web-site is a forgery.
All evidence produced on October 22, 2012 is STRICKEN.
Courtesy of Jack Ryan’s Scribd
IN 2012-11-1 – POST-TRIAL ORDER
IN 2012-11-1 – ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
IN 2012-11-1 – ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
IN 2012-11-1 – ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE
In the Orange County Superior Court in California, Reliable Source reporting for The Fogbow:
Court did not convene until 1:44 p.m. It is believed that Judge Margines was reviewing the opposition papers submitted by Mssrs. Ritt and Botterud when the doors opened at 1:30. Mr. Ritt served Taitz with the paperwork in the courtroom. While waiting for the judge to take the bench, Taitz approached Mr. Botterud to ask, “If the judge grants this motion to compel today, do you have the documents with you?” An obviously amused Mr. Botterud replied “no” and Taitz asked “do they even exist?”. Mr. Ritt stated “we not going to answer that question” and Taitz took a seat.
The judge took the bench, greeted the crowd, the crowd greeted him and immediately thereafter, Dr. Taitz’ cell phone rang. There was no comment by court personnel on this development.
Another ex parte matter was called first and the judge ripped the moving party a new one. Mr. Botterud and Reliable Source both appeared to take this as a positive sign, judging by looks exchanged. Taitz was too consumed in the opposition papers to take note of the demeanor of the judge.
That was probably not necessary anyway, as this is the 3rd time in the last week that she has appeared in his courtroom.
When the case was called Judge Margines began to summarize the posture of the case. During this, Taitz was busy shuffling random paperwork, notebooks and her purse around counsel table. This time she was on the correct side as Mr. Ritt took his position first. The judge stated that he “had some thoughts on this application” and that many of those issues were also raised in the opposition:
*No proof of service
*Exclusive method to obtain 3rd party information is by subpoena
*The subpoena was served after the motion to compel was filed and served improperly
*There was no notice to the “consumer” under California CCP 1985 or 1987
*Taitz argument should address the request for sanctions, which the court is contemplating imposing
Continue reading »
Update: Subpoena quashed; motion denied with prejudice; Taitz sanctioned $4,000 to be paid to Occidental College. (Running total: $24,250.) More to follow.
–
This afternoon at 1:30PM, there is a rescheduled ex parte hearing in Taitz v. Obama (zombie), in Ocean Orange County Superior Court in California. Taitz, who has had, let’s just say, difficulties properly serving this one and that one in courts around the country, somehow managed to compel Occidental College in her own jurisdiction, and they’ve responded. It shouldn’t be too crowded; I don’t think anyone else has responded, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who was served with one sheet of paper by fax and told she could see the rest of the brief online. That’s our Orly for you.
Yesterday, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. made public an email she received from Occidental’s General Counsel, outlining the college’s position regarding her attempt to get an ex parte order from the court for the President’s student records:
Dr. Taitz,
This email confirms that I spoke with you via telephone on October 31, 2012 at approximately 1:40 p.m. In that conversation, I told you that I intend to appear tomorrow in Dept. C-19 of the Orange County Superior Court on behalf of Occidental College to oppose the ex parte application filed by you in case no 30-2012 00582135.
I told you that it is the College’s position that your application is without merit, frivolous, and warrants sanctions.
I would respectfully ask that you withdraw your application and not proceed with the scheduled hearing. Should you decide to do so, please advise me as soon as possible.
Respectfully,
Carl A. Botterud
General Counsel
OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE
She replied, in part, with the usual threats:
Your opposition will constitute Obstruction of Justice, Aiding and Abetting in the elections fraud in forgery and treason in allowing a foreign citizen to usurp the U.S. Presidency with an aid of forged IDs and usurp the civil rights of the U.S. citizens. I would highly recommend not to attempt intimidating me any further.
At any rate your opposition and your attempt of intimidation and your allegiance or lack of allegiance to the United States of America is duly noted.
So this might be a fun hearing and we will have a Fogbow court observer’s report later today.
Continue reading »
Judge Andrew Guilford, US District Court, Central District of California, sounds like he has had about enough of this vintage Birther v. Birther extravaganza, which traveled to his fair courtroom all the way from Pennsylvania.
The Court is now considering what action it should take so that the limited resources of this Court – and taxpayer dollars – might not be further wasted in this case. Possibilities include a published opinion outlining all the misconduct that has occurred, orders prohibiting certain attorneys from further representation in this matter, and dismissals of claims.
Justice, sometimes it burns.
Courtesy of Bad Fiction.
Continue reading »
Concerning a Hearing on Demurrer – Writ of Mandate for Dummett v. CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen, held on October 26 in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, here is the Minute Order Adopting Tentative Ruling:
The demurrer therefore is sustained without leave to amend. Judgment of dismissal shall be entered in favor of respondents.
The successful demurrer relied on earlier, nearly identical Birther challenges, Noonan v. Bowen and Keyes v. Bowen, both of them also losers. Conclusion: “The Secretary of State has no mandatory duty to make a factual determination as to whether President Obama is eligible to hold or run for office of President of the United States.”
In Dummett, the State argued:
Here, the Court should make the same determination it made in Noonan. Nothing in the latest opposition brief compels a different result. Indeed, in large part the opposition appears to have been “copied and pasted” verbatim from the unsuccessful opposition in Noonan.
Noonan was brought by Pamela Barnett of the Obama Ballot Challenge collection of coconuts, representing herself, because no lawyer would have her. Petitioner Edward C. Noonan was represented by Gary Kreep.
The Dummett challenge was brought by John Dummett, represented by Gary Kreep and his heir apparent, Nathaniel Olesen. Their Opposition was filed on October 12. Olesen advised Dummett following the hearing:
After Gary and I presented our arguments the judge took the matter under submission instead of affirming the tenative. This means that we won the hearing and the case will continue. …
I guess not.
Continue reading »