On Sunday, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. faxed a letter addressed to David A. DeJute & Roger West, attorneys for the Defense and her co-counsel on Keyes>Barnett v. Obama, Gary Kreep, containing a notice to disqualify him, with a copy to the court. Let the funs begin.
At the recent hearing on this case, Judge Carter made it abundantly clear, in no uncertain terms, that Taitz and Kreep, he as attorney for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, would be setting their differences aside and working together; that Taitz had improperly and deceptively dismissed the two Plaintiffs; and he granted Kreep’s petition on behalf of his clients to remain in the case.
As far as I’ve seen, until yesterday, Kreep has maintained silence about Taitz, at least I found nothing on his website, which tends to keep to news items; although it should be noted there are anti-Taitz drum-bangers out in Birfistan. (Adding: Tonight Kreep was interviewed on MommaE’s radio show and discusses the case and Taitz.)
But minutes after stepping out of the courtroom in California, Taitz began a public campaign against Kreep, which has continued without letup for a week. She has organized her Plaintiffs to object to the judge’s order, to the extent they may bring a lawsuit against Kreep, and her supporters to harass the court with letters and phone calls.
In Sunday’s letter, she didn’t repeat her performance inside and outside Judge Carter’s courtroom, but wrote of her clients’ objections:
Also, regarding Mr. Kreep, I am requesting that his agreement and stipulation that he will resign as counsel for co-Plaintiffs Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson or else be subject (within ten days) to my motion to disqualify him as cocounsel by reason of conflict of interests which have arisen in prior litigation. FDIC v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co., 50 F.3d 1304, 1311 (5th Cir. 1995).
A number of my clients believe, contend and intend to show by clear and convincing evidence (a) that Gary Kreep’s prior representation of him was so substantially related to the current litigation so as to warrant the disqualification of counsel and (b) that the conflicts of interest which exist in this case between Gary Kreep and my clients go the very heart of this litigation in such a manner that it will unduly complicated litigation and ultimately and unjustifiably confuse the jury at final trial. In re American Airlines, Inc., 972 F.2d 605, 614 (5th Cir. 1992).
Politico had a response from Kreep yesterday:
Kreep said Monday that he is baffled by Taitz’s suggestion of a conflict.
“I have no idea what she is talking about,” Kreep said in an interview. “I’ve never represented any defendant in this case. I dont know how I could have any conflict.”
“I guess it’s just part of her continuing effort to keep me out of the case,” Kreep said.
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. maintains a strictly moderated website. Anything posted on the front page, including for her supporters, is pre-approved and posted by an assistant, so it’s not like this has been happening without her knowledge.
From a letter addressed to Kreep from a Taitz supporter:
You three should grow up and create your own case and make your own way in the system. Of course you are smug and have no trouble “getting along with Orly” and make her look bad to Carter, making her look like the problem. Carter is unaware of the history and the public badmouthing. We are all very aware who have supported this case.
Many will be writing Carter of the antics of these phony clients and you as a professional lawyer, who should back up off of Orly and stop the public molestation.
From poster “AWP“:
However, one of your co-counsels, believed to be Mr. Kreep, has lived up to every letter of his name, because he could not agree with the other co-counsel on this/your case in which you are apparently representing 4 dozen co-plaintiffs.
Based on yesterday’s events it is clear that you are going to have to release Mr. Kreep completely from this/your case if you plan on being successful and not jeopardizing this/your case in its entirety, and I certainly hop that you are going to pay attention to everything Judge Carter told you.
Also bear in mind that it is you, and only you, that is the attorney out front and that you and only you finalize any decisions for the successful outcome of your case, which at the present may be dismissed, and at the next Hearing there will be no room for any mistakes on your part or the part(s) of any “attorneys” who are supposed to be on your team, and have no business jeopardizing you or your reputation, which you have worked hard to maintain as is proven by the 46 co-plaintiffs retaining you to represent them in this important matter.
Plaintiff Jeff Schwilk writes to a World Net Daily reporter:
Ms. Taitz has a large team of experienced attorneys assisting her now. If Mr. Kreep remains on this case he will be expected to give his professional input, but defer to OUR lead attorney, Ms. Taitz and not argue with her in open court.
As you may or may not be aware, Mr. Kreep has a horrible reputation in Southern California among grass-roots activists and Patriot groups. His latest court gimmick yesterday was just another in a long string of selfish games that Kreep has been playing. Everyone is on to him here and watching his every move from now on. He will be tarred and feathered if he in any way hurts our case.
His days of damaging Ms. Taitz’ efforts to get to the truth are OVER!
Just a friendly warning to those who continue to support and promote Gary Kreep in this case.
The intention of her Plaintiffs, now reported to number 82!, is to sue Gary Kreep. This is so bizarre. Cases are consolidated all the time. More than one lawyer represents various plaintiffs in a case all the time. Disobeying a direct order from a judge is a serious matter and Gary Kreep appears to be the one lawyer in this case who understands that.
Mind you, I wouldn’t give two cents for the whole bunch of them, including Gary Kreep, but I just don’t understand what Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. hopes to gain by flouting a judge’s orders this way.
And this is the judge she and her supporters claim to like best for their cause. He has been very lenient with her craziness, but this may be the tipping point.
She might have been forewarned when Judge Carter asked:
You are about to cause a huge delay, and cause a procedural quagmire because of your refusal to work with each other. Because of this dispute between you and Kreep, you are going to delay everything. Is this about you representing your clients or is this about you, personally?
She might have if she weren’t the thickest-headed lawyer in creation.
An interesting aside is Judge Land’s comment during yesterday’s hearing in Rhodes v. MacDonald in Georgia: “This is not a forum to lay ground work for a press conference,” Land said. “This is a court of law.”
Taitz’s post of today to her website refers to Birther radio hosts and bloggers, such as Phil from The Right Side of Life, as “saboteurs, wolfs in sheep’s clothe, Obots dressed as patriots.” As an Obot, I affirm this to be true (not). After trashing other Birther lawyers, she talks about her history with Gary Kreep:
Last point -Gary Kreep . It is very similar to Berg. Last year when I initiated Keyes v Bowen (secretary of state of CA), Drake and Robinson have recommended that I work with Kreep. Originally I thought it was a good idea, but soon I could see that he only creates an illusion of fighting Obama, but he is not really doing it. When we were supposed to file our case, he went to Vegas for a week and then to DC for the weekend. When we were supposed to be in court, he went to HI for 12 days and showed up 1 day before the electoral college meeting, scheduled the hearing for March, when it was too late to do anything against the Secretary of State and when Superior Court judge Keeney has dismissed it as moot.
I encouraged Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson to file an emergency stay in the Supreme Court of CA (2 levels higher), I encouraged them not to waste time, suing 55 democratic party electors, as it was taking a long time to serve them and it was not necessary, I encouraged to utilize Vatel definition of Natural Born Citizen, which was the most beneficial for the plaintiffs. In response Kreep has written to them, encouraging them to fire me. Alan Keyes refused to fire me, but I saw that the case was stuck in the lowest possible court and is going nowhere, so I gathered a new group of plaintiffs and filed a new law suit Lightfoot v Bowen (on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, vice presidential candidate for Ron Paul on the ballot in CA). I filed for a stay in the Supreme Court of CA and from there I went to the Supreme Court of the United States and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts agreed to hear the case in the conference of all 9 justices on January 23. Unfortunately on January 21, one day after inauguration someone has erased the case from the docket of the Supreme Court. Hundreds of people complained, it was reentered on the 22nd. I demanded investigation and I am still waiting for the results of that investigation as to who erased my case from the docket of the Supreme Court.
Regardless, you can see as my case was in the highest court of the land, the first case, were Kreep was involved, was stuck in the lowest possible court, going nowhere.
From November Kreep has sent numerous solicitations, under the name US Justice foundation (the whole foundation is one person-Kreep) He was saying:give me 5,00, give me 2,000 give me what you have,I’ll fight for you. I’ll file law suits every time Obama signs a law or an executive order. In reality he filed nothing. Absolutely nothing. I was the only one who was filing law suits and getting results. Now, when there is a possibility of actual judgment, Drake and Robinson make a new deal with Kreep. They will try to create an illusion of doing something productive, but I have been there, done that. I know where it ends. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Meanwhile, Gary Kreep has filed in opposition to the Defense’s Ex-Parte Motion for a Limited Stay of Discovery of September 10:
09/14/2009 64 OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY ; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 60 filed by Plaintiffs Markham Robinson, Wiley S Drake. (Attachments: # 1 [RECAP] Declaration Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Ex Parte Application For Limited Stay of Discovery, # 2 [RECAP] Appendix Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Ex Parte Application For Limited Stay of Discovery, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits to Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Ex Parte Application For Limited Stay of Discovery)(Kreep, Gary) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
In case Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.’s part of the Plaintiff pool wants to see how it’s done. What’s different, for one thing, it is signed. It is timely. It argues against the Defense’s motion directly on the merits of the Defense’s motion. The language is clear and respectful—not one mention I noticed of usurpers or shaved monkeys—and not emotionally overwrought. It is written the way any lawyer would write it who has been to law school, unlike Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., who basically prepped for a bar exam.
The Government has until September 28 to respond.
In the same post to her website today, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. says:
On Sunday I submitted to the department of Justice electronically a proposed schedule of discovery. 33 days fall on October 17, I proposed deposition for October 19th Monday and left 4 weeks open, when I am available every day :weekdays and weekends, I will come to DC if need to be, to accommodate Obama and other defendants and witnesses.
In response US attorneys representing the defendants have filed a motion to stay the discovery, meaning to stop it.
This is a lie. The DOJ filed its Motion for a Temporary Stay of Discovery on September 10; impossibly, Taitz is claiming it was in response to her letter of September 13. Kreep has responded to that ex-parte Motion and, while he mentioned in his response on behalf of his own clients that it was his understanding Taitz would be filing her own response on behalf of hers, she has, so far, not. Judge Carter has not ruled on expedited discovery.
Orly Taitz is a liar.
Anyway, anyhow, a Birthers v. Birthers lawsuit is always fun to watch, so carry on, Birfoons.
That is a wonderful public service; now the world can see that Orly Taitz is a liar.