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
Taitz then tenders a large stapled stack of stuff she calls proofs of service and gives Mr. Ritt her only other copy.
Judge Margines begins a page by page review of the, eh, documents, noting defects in each and every alleged proof of service. The documents are pretty random, prompting the judge to exclaim, “This is just the order in which they are stapled”. As he was reviewing this, Taitz interrupted to clarify several times and was told not to interrupt several times. Bottom line – none of the proofs prove anything.
Mr. Ritt was given the opportunity to argue. He pointed out that the subpoena was not served until the motion was already filed and that the subpoena was not served until yesterday. And, also, too, is untimely, facially defective in many regards and cannot possibly support a motion to compel.
Taitz reminds the court that she just her on Monday for a status conference and the judge told her she hadn’t served something, so she served something. Then she states her argument that because refused to produce documents in the Keyes case four years ago, it wouldn’t make any difference to serve them with a new subpoena.
The judge asks, “is it your position that prior non-cooperation in another case excuses you from serving a subpoena? How did you ask before?” She says she serve Oxy and that they filed an “opposition”. At this point, she turned to Mr. Ritt and asks “was it a motion to quash?”. The judge says, “talk to me Ms. Taitz.”
The judge asks, “what happened in Keyes” and Taitz tells him it was dismissed before a hearing on the subpoena and that became moot. [raicha says: I don't think so.]
Then she’s off, stating that the election is on Tuesday. The court says “you knew that”. Taitz argues that she was there 2 times in 2 weeks, that she filed a request for default judgment. She thought that would be granted, but it wasn’t, so she had to come back for the status conference at which point the judge had told her he would be willing to hear the case on short notice. Based on that, she paid $125 to serve Obama…
Judge Margines interrupts and asks, “if you were comfortable that no subpoena was needed, why did you serve it?” Taitz says “an abundance of caution”. Then she refers to Mr. Botterud’s email to her indicating that he would be at this hearing. She said when she got that, she did “extra due diligence” so Mr. Botterud would have the records with him.
The court notes that Mr. Botterud’s statement that he was appearing in order to oppose the motion is not the same thing as agreeing to bring the records.
Taitz now launches the “national security” rant, referencing her documents, Arpaio, etc., and stating that with only 5 days left, she made an “extra effort” to serve everyone.
Then, somewhat surprisingly, she makes a new argument under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. She states that she didn’t even need a subpoena under FERPA because it states that “directory information” about a student may be released by court order. She’s says she not asking for private information, just citizenship information and she’s here for her court order.
The court asks if, under that law, he would be required to make a finding that someone was a terrorist. Taitz says no. The court asks “if I find that this is real important, am I allowed to circumvent the law?”. Taitz says yes, under FERPA.
With a copy of a portion of the Act in her hand, she asks “May I approach?” and the judge loudly and immediately responds, “NO! I do not need to see that” and, unlike Judge Malihi, successfully keeps Taitz out of the well.
Now Taitz tries to get “Army Intelligence Officer Pamela Barnett” on the stand to testify regarding Ann Dunham’s passport records. The court asks if Barnett submitted an affidavit and Taitz said no, but Struck did and it says the same thing.
The court asks how Barnett relates to the Oxy matter. Taitz does give a direct answer and begin the national security rant again.
The court interrupts to ask if Taitz had mentioned FERPA in her paperwork and she admits that she didn’t.
Turning back to Mr. Ritt who states “It is absurd that Occidential College is here and was forced to spent money.” He points out that FERPA is a consumer protection statute that protects everyone from the newest college freshman to the most esteemed graduate. If the judge reviews the statute, he will see that.
At which point the judge denies the motion to compel and asks Taitz to address the issue of sanctions. She says sanctions are not justified, there is real exigence in this case, only 5 days to the election. Restates the national security crap, references her docs, Arpaio, etc. Claims that she is President of a nonprofit foundation and that she has “no desire to make money”, that she is working pro bono out of concern for national security. “Public concerns greatly outweigh any inconvenience Mr. Ritt may have suffered.” Says that if Oxy were given more notice and more time that we would learn the truth after the election and national security requires tht we learn it before. But, if the court is not willing to grant now, please reschedule to allow more time to Oxy.
Then Taitz veers off to the Trump $5M offer and asks why would Obama refuse? After all, “there is a high probability of an important concern.”
Judge Margines then says, “I just want to be clear. The motion is denied with prejudice.” Because:
*It is improper on its face
*There was no service
*There was no notice to the consumer per CCP 1985
*It is not timely – Taitz has known about the records for months, even years but brings this on nearly the last business day before the election.
Then tells Taitz that he is awarding sanctions not as a punishment but for cost shifting, to shift Oxy’s costs to her. Orders $4,000 to be paid personally by Taitz to Oxy, to Mr. Ritt’s client trust account. Mr. Ritt to give notice of the ruling.
Taitz requests a stay of imposition of sanctions pending appeal. Denied.
Mr. Ritt and Mr. Botterud depart while Reliable Source hangs around for more fun stuff.
Having disposed of the motion to compel, the judge made an announcement that filled Reliable Source with gleeful anticipation: He was ready to rule on the elections challenge itself and there would be no reason to address the motion to stay as there would be nothing left to stay!
He has reviewed all of the “evidence” including 35 exhibits and his tentative ruling is to deny the elections challenge without getting “to the merits”. The plaintiff has the burden of proof and she failed to meet that burden. Asks Taitz if she wishes to hear his rationale or just conclude the case.
Taitz asks, “so you are finding that the nation has no right to know…?”
The court: “I’m not going to the merits. Do you want to hear my rationale or don’t you?”
Taitz: “It is obvious that it doesn’t matter what evidence is presented.”
The court begins to explain the rationale:
*There is no valid proof of service on the President or any of the responsdents. Barack Obama’s name wasn’t even on that proof of service.
*Taitz has not shown that she is entitled to the relief requested
*Taitz own affidavit is not properly verified
*The petition (initiating affidavit by Taitz) refers to only 13 of the 35 total exhibits. Therefore the remainder are disregarded, although a quick review of them indicates that they have many hurdles to admissibility.
*Going through the 13 exhibits, documents have no foundation, they are not authenticated, they are irrelevant and they are hearsay. Some are credible on their face. Arpaio’s affidavit is not properly verified under California law and his “beliefs” are not entitled to any weight. Vogt, Adams, and Papa have similar issues. Jordan is illegible. The judge isn’t going to watch a DVD when there is no offer of proof as to why it is relevant at all. And documents in Indonesian were “translated” by an unidentified translator.
*The other exhibits are “just out there” with nothing under oath to explain them.
Because Taitz has not met her burden, the tentative is to deny the entire election challenge without reaching the merits. Asks Taitz if she wishes to argue.
Taitz: If you have made up your mind, I’m not going to say anything.
Court: It is a tentative, you may argue it. You asked me to rule on the merits today. You want me to, don’t you?
Taitz: That’s what discovery is for. Let’s hear the witnesses, have trial.
Court: We aren’t hearing witnesses. That why we have pleadings and briefs.
Taitz: You have the voter roll information.
Court: Do I? You are a lawyer. You should know that evidence is not stuff printed from the internet.
Taitz launches into the voter roll argument, states that Barnett will testify that USA is entered when they don’t have the data. Asks to continue the case and have a trial.
Court: what are you asking me to do today?
After some back and forth with Taitz -
Court: You are asking me to stay certification of votes that haven’t yet taken place for Senate and President.
Requests denied in full, court asks “what, if anything, is left in this challenge? Are you seeking to continue?”
Taitz says “yes”. Trial? “yes”.
Court: there is still no proper service.
Taitz: you have the proof of service of a professional process server on Obama.
Taitz then moves to dismiss Hughes and Williams, without prejudice. Granted!
There begins another round regarding who was served with what, when and whether any of it was any good, with Taitz now requesting that the court enter a default against Obama, Emken and Feinstein. Sadly for Reliable Source, Judge Margines agrees to take the matter of default under submission and consideration and states that if default is entered that “we go on to the prove-up”.
But he warns that he could find that there was no valid service and there would be no default.
Taitz argues that witnesses are already here. That 2 lawyers from Oxy had been there and they know the truth about Obama. That an ambassador was murdered so it is important who Obama really is. “I am begging you to set a date to find out even one thing, citizenship.”
The court: That’s over, I ruled on that.
Taitz: when are you willing to hear on the merits?
Court: it depends on if I find effective service
Taitz: will you set a date now?
Court: no, if I find default, I will set quickly
Taitz: I paid $500 to fly Pamela Barnett here
Court: Denied, witnesses are premature
Taitz: May I file a motion to reconsider the sanctions?
Court: Of course. You’re the lawyer. Are we done?
Taitz: You’re the boss.
Court: I’m giving you an opportunity to be heard. More than most. I’m here.
Taitz then tries to get the Oxy process server on the stand. (Doltz?)
Court again: witnesses are premature. We are in recess.
–
The take away from Reliable Source: the court will rule no service, no default. May then set an OSC re: dismissal of the elections challenge and then toss out the challenge exactly as he stated he wanted to in today’s tentaive.
In an alternate universe, he finds service is valid, enters default, holds the prove-up hearing, finds all the evidence to be useless as he has already stated and tosses out the challenge.
It’s a win-win.
–
See also:
Occidental College Lawyer On RC Radio
Taitz v. Obama: Fogbow Court Observer’s Report
Taitz v. Obama: Occidental In Court Today–Updated
Taitz v. Obama: Quo Warranto Re-Reconsideration–DENIED
Taitz v. Obama Reconsideration–DENIED
Paper Terrorist Taitz Files Again
Birther Ed Hale Promoting Violence
Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto)—DISMISSED
Taitz v. Obama: Defense Files Opposition To Joining Case To Health Care Lawsuit
Taitz v. Obama: Motion To Dismiss First Amended Complaint
Taitz v. Obama: Crickets From Judge Lamberth
Orly Taitz Moves To Attach Birther Case To 13 Republican AGs On Health Insurance Law
Taitz v. Obama: Orly Sues The Defense
Motion To Dismiss Taitz v. Obama
CA Bar: “We’re not gonna tell on her.”
Taitz v. Obama Intervention Sought By Usurper-Buster Strunk
Taitz Quo Warranto Related To Failed American Grand Jury Case
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.