Update 11/5: Courtesy of Jack Ryan’s Scribd.
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  Motion of the Judgment on Pleadings, and  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  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,  MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings,  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.)
Taitz initially argues that there should be just one hearing, and it should include sanctions, and she should be able to put on witnesses to prove that she has a legal and factual basis to bring on lawsuit. (If Court is going to have a hearing, he should permit witnesses and include her motion for sanctions re: defense counsel’s motion for judicial notice.)
Walter Dukes (counsel for the Hawai’i defenants, whose brother just completed his term as President of MS Bar, and whose former partner is now a federal judge) then brings up issue of Taitz representing other plaintiffs and practicing law illegally in MS. Taitz responds by saying that Leah Lax wants to dismiss her claim. There is a discussion of Taitz’s allegedly representing the other plaintiffs and a copy of her engagement letter with Ms. Lax which Taitz sent to MS counsel over the weekend (after Lax wrote a letter saying Taitz was her lawyer, don’t write Lax directly). Tepper says engagement letter (paraphasing: “I’m your attorney where I get admitted and a co-plaintiff where I’m not”) is a ploy allowing Taitz to represent other plaintiffs without being admitted pro hac. (Tepper notes that this has been a tactic of hers in many other cases. When she can’t appear pro hac, she just finds other plaintiffs and just signs their names to the complaint.) Taitz then launches into a lengthy discussion of fraud and claims she is not representing anybody in Mississippi except herself.
Taitz also says that Tepper’s settlement proposal letter of last week, which she falsely claims he sent to all plaintiffs, was sent to intimidate other plaintiffs. (The terms of the settlement letter may be a subject of the Reality Check Radio show.) That letter made a demand for a dismissal, an end to Taitz’s defamations and payment of $25,000 to defray the attorney’s fees of defense counsel, who expended “many multiples” of that. Unsurprisingly, Taitz lies about it, misstatiung the terms and claiming it was sent to her co-plaintiffs who were “intimidated” by it. (It was only sent to Taitz.)
Judge is about to order that Taitz notify other plaintiffs to appear but notes that he doesn’t have their addresses. Taitz claims she provided physical addresses first to court, then to Sam Begley. But Court can’t find and Tepper says they were never provided. Judge instructs Taitz to provide names and addresses of the other plaintiffs.
Taitz hangs up. Then calls back in.
Court orders Taitz to provide physical addresses for other plaintiffs to Court and opposing counsel. Court intends to ensure that all plaintiffs are notified of the upcoming hearing. (They are expected to attend).
Judge is interrupting jury trial on November 16, 2012 at 1 pm. Court says “we might go pretty late” and will address all motions. Counsel are to take that into account.
Court inquires about Taitz’s new motion for sanctions and asks if counsel can file oppositions in time. Tepper says counsel may not have time but if it is merely a reiteration of the prior sanctions motion, counsel will seek to adopt by reference the prior oppositions.
Taitz then overplays her hand. She is going to bring in more witnesses! Taitz requests that court subpoena or order for her witness from Tennessee (the “expert”) to appear because he is being intimidated. Judge is puzzled since this new expert is her witness. Judge wants an affidavit re intimidation.
Taitz then asks for court order for Dr. Onaka to appear. Walter Dukes objects saying Dr. Onaka has appeared specially and isn’t subject to the court’s jurisdiction. Taitz then says she’s seeking to subpoena Dr. Onaka as a witness.
Court is about to allow Taitz to issue subpoenas but several counsel object. Taitz then talks about her “trial” in “court” in Georgia and how a judge found a subpoena against the President proper. Tepper corrects Taitz on various misstatements (at least a dozen) in her non stop 7 minute rant, pointing out it wasn’t a court trial but an administrative hearing before an ALJ, and that the superior court on review found the proceedings shouldn’t have been held. (Taitz says that’s not true.) Tepper asks the court not to give Taitz the power to issue subpoenas but to have magistrate judge supervise the process.
Taitz then brags about her Indiana case and the evidence adduced there. When Tepper points out that Taitz lost that one, too, and that all her evidence was stricken from the record, Taitz concedes the trial was vacated but asserts all her evidence was “accepted into the record.” And she offers to send the court the transcript.
The Court is then disconnected from the line and everyone is directed to call back in. (This is 53 minutes into the call.)
Taitz calls in 4 minutes late.
Court takes over the call. Tells Taitz she is a party and can call witnesses. Tepper objects and says resolution of the MJOP and MTD don’t need witnesses. Tepper then says he and his clients will not be ready for witnesses related to Taitz’s sanctions motion, because they would need time to depose the so called experts, noting that that the new expert (who Taitz claims is one of her “many Ph.D.s”) has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and his only expertise in this field is that he’s looked at a computer screen for more than 10 years. Tepper says none of her experts would qualify under Daubert and reiterates that experts aren’t needed if the court limits the hearing to the MJOP and MTD.
Court agrees. The current motions do not call for witnesses. And that motion for sanctions that had not been filed yet will not be heard at November 16 hearing. (This, after Tepper pointed out that if she does not prevail on dispositive motions, her motion for sanctions would be improper.)
Taitz gets panicky. She suggests consolidating everything into a single hearing be heard on November 30. She goes off for 10 minutes on merits issues. Taitz once again takes over proceedings and goes on and on about coming from a communist regime, being a pro se, she will take depositions in Hawai’i and on and on. (Again, heroically, since she says she is doing this pro se and paying for everything herself.)
Court then stops Taitz (who at one point screeches “Let me feenish . . .”)
Court is ready to rule: “On November 16 at 1 o’clock the court will hear argument on MJOP, MTD for lack of jurisdiction and MTD for failure to state a claim. Only those motions will be heard at that time. After that we will discuss status of the motion for sanctions and, if necessary, pick a time for that along with a provision for possible discovery.”
Conference ends at 11:44 am.
As it ends, Taitz asks to be heard (again), but the judge has already hung up. Tepper laughs and says, “No one is listening to you anymore. And that’s the way it should always be.”
Tune in to RC Radio Special Edition tonight.