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
New Benghazi Account Bolsters CIA
Intelligence officials have disclosed a new detailed timeline of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, acknowledging the CIA played a greater role in responding to the attack than has previously been disclosed. A senior U.S. intelligence official also insisted that the CIA security team that initially responded to the attack was not given orders “to stand down in providing support,” as had been suggested in media reports.
The timeline provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official gives the first precise account of how CIA security teams provided the first response to the Sept. 11 attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
The attack has become a political hot potato in the presidential campaign, with conservatives accusing the administration of not being transparent. The State Department has previously released a detailed account of the night’s events, but did not acknowledge a CIA role in the response. The timeline given by a senior Intelligence official confirms that the facility previously described by the State Department as an annex, was in fact, a facility housing CIA security officers. It does not provide any additional details on the current intelligence assessment that the attack was an opportunistic result of earlier protests that day outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo over an anti-Muslim movie.
The official says there was “no second guessing” of those on the ground in Libya by senior officials either in Libya or Washington.
“There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support,” said the official. The official’s comments appeared to be a direct rebuttal of a Fox News report that CIA teams on the ground had been told by superior officers to “stand down” from providing security support to the consulate.
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
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:
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.
Carl A. Botterud
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.
At the news conference today, Mr. Obama said, “When you see neighbors helping neighbors then you’re reminded what America’s all about. We look out for one another and we don’t leave anybody behind.”