THE BIRTHER MOVEMENT (AND OTHER FOLLIES) IN THE AGE OF BARACK OBAMA                          

Oh, For Goodness Sake

Nov 062012
 

If you need a break this Election Day, give a listen to Monday nights show with Jay Ritt, the attorney representing Occidental College, who won sanctions against Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. in Taitz v. Obama, in Orange County Superior Court on November 1. Very interesting discussion of abuse of the legal system, vexatious litigation and Orlys pitiful legal skills. Scott J. Tepper, co-counsel against Taitz in the Mississippi Ballot Challenge, also has a message or two for Orly Taitz in a remarkably frank discussion of that case. A six-figure sanctions demand appears to be in Orlys future, after she rejected a settlement offer for a mere $25,000. The brightest bulb, she is not.

Continue reading »

 Posted by at 9:49 am
Nov 052012
 

Update 11/5: Courtesy of Jack Ryans Scribd.

Docket Memos:

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 [15] Motion of the Judgment on Pleadings, and [57] 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 plaintiffs 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 [57] 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, [8] MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, [15] 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 hadnt 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 Taitzs statement on her website that 3 lawyers werent 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.)

Continue reading »

 Posted by at 1:50 pm
© 2009-2017 Oh, For Goodness Sake Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha