Nov 012012
 

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 »

 Posted by at 5:30 pm
Nov 012012
 

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 »

 Posted by at 12:30 am