It’s probably wildly optimistic that anything is going to happen, but let me spray some glue on the wall and then throw a few random objects and see what sticks.
The first item for the wall is a filing dated March 27, 2012, from Orly Taitz in her Mississippi ballot challenge, a notice to appear to Mike Zullo, the “chief investigator” of the Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Arizona volunteer “cold case posse.”According to Taitz, Mr. Zullo must “appear as a witnessed (sic) at the hearing” which is apparently scheduled for April 16, 2012 at the Hinds County Court House in Jackson, Mississippi. (I regret that I have other commitments on that date.) It’s not clear whether Zullo has any intention of showing up or that the judge would let him testify at this hearing.
The second item is a motion from the Democratic Party side for admission of California attorney Scott J. Tepper pro hac vice. I don’t keep up with who’s who under online screen names, but according Orly Taitz, writing last June, Tepper is the well-respected Fogbow poster Sterngard Friegen. The motion was filed March 30, three days after Taitz noticed Zullo. I have no opinion on whether Tepper is Friegen, but Taitz thinks so, and has responded today with a “Dtaft”(sic) motion posted on her blog [link to Taitz web site] opposing the Democrat’s request that she be examined under oath to answer allegations of barratry, champerty and maintenance and the admission of Tepper. Taitz writes:
Today Taitz received a copy of pro hac vice application of one Scott J. Tepper, who is seeking admission pro hac vice in order to oppose Taitz in the case at hand.
Tepper is an individual who engaged in a four year vendetta and harassment of the Plaintiff Orly Taitz. Tepper, who posts under the name Sterngart (sic) Friegen, and his cohorts created an attack site called “Fogbow” . Tepper (Sterngard Friegen ) spent hours defaming Taitz on the pages of the website “Fogbow”. Supporters of Taitz found over 2,000 defmatory(sic) statements about Taitz made by Tepper/Sterngard Friegen.
Additionally, as a part time investigator for the California bar Tepper attempted to interfere with Taitz practice of law and engaged in de facto and possibly de jure prosecutorial misconduct as he sent multiple e-mails with complaints and an official complaint to the bar against Taitz. At the end California bar decided not to act on any of the complaints by Tepper, however Tepper’s actions cost Taitz an enormous loss of time, financial and emotional resources.
Additionally Tepper repeatedly engaged in the most inappropriate sexual comments about Taitz. After Taitz appeared as an attorney before the 9th circuit court of appeals and Tepper was in the audience, he appeared on RCR radio program and made totally inappropriate remarks about Taitz, claiming that when she had to run to the bathroom before entering the courtroom, she engaged in sexual contact there.
Tepper’s obsession with harassment of Taitz led to a whole “Fogbow” convention in Phoenix, Arizona, which was subsidized by an unknown donor, where Tepper and his cohorts worked out plans of sabotaging work by Taitz and others to bring Obama to justice. One of Tepper’s co-horts (sic) attorney for [name redacted] threatened Taitz that “men in black1 will come after her and this will not be a pleasant visit”. Tepper, [name redacted] and a few other big supporters of Obama used their positions with state and federal government to attack and defame Taitz, derail and sabotage her work and shield Obama from prosecution for elections fraud and use of forged documents.
Tepper is a big supporter of Obama, who gave large donations to Obama campaign.
Allowing Tepper as a co-counsel in this case will not contribute to the case in any way, as Tepper [CAUTION LOWER GAIN ON ALL IRONY METERS] has no knowledge of Mississippi law2, he does not have any identification documents for Obama, he is not an expert in any field. Allowing Tepper to become a co-counsel for the Democratic party (sic) will only taint the decision in this case, as an individual, with a known history of harassment of the Plaintiff would be given free reign to harass her as an opposing counsel. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the defense wants to question Taitz on the stand during April 16, 2012 hearing.
Lastly, due to Tepper’s personal involvement in the cover up of Obama’s forged records by virtue of his harassment of Taitz and others, he is on the list of potential defendants in the RICO action. As such there is a direct conflict between Tepper and his prospective client, Democratic Party of Mississippi. As such, he cannot serve as the attorney for the Democratic party of Mississippi, even if he was licensed in the state of Mississippi.
My understanding is that the only people allowed to oppose Orly, according to her, are people who are nice to her; otherwise, it’s unfair, and certainly an Obama supporter should not be allowed to represent Obama. Taitz also moved previously to prevent the Attorney General of Mississippi from representing the Secretary of State.
While Taitz has her computer warmed up (but apparently not the spelling and grammar checker), she also wants a subpoena for some documents that the Democratic Party of Mississippi doesn’t likely have. In opposition to the motion that she appear as a witness, Orly shows her grasp of legal theory in this rather complex legal argument:
The motion in itself is a sign of an unprecedented level of corruption, total lack of integrity, human decency and any values by the defendants and their attorney, Mr. Samuel Begley….
Any decent human being would realize that it is the number one priority of national importance to remove from the White House and criminally prosecute an individual usurping the U.S. Presidency….
So, the whole motion is simply frivolous and should be denied and defendants and their attorney should be severely sanctioned for bringing such a ridiculous motion, which is nothing but an insult to one’s intelligence.
This contrasts to Taitz who says that she:
… is acting as a decent human being (a concept which is obviously foreign to the Defendant and Mr. Begley).
There is no way I can condense all the crazy in that motion into an article. You’ll just have to read it for yourselves.
1It is denied that anyone said this.
2And Taitz does?