Main Menu

Flash: Grinols hearing transcript

I’m reading the transcript now. I feel as if I had already read this, so excellent are the Fogbow boots on the ground report on the case. My favorite quote so far, from Judge England:

…people can’t simply say I am an expert in a particular area because they want to be an expert.

Having read the transcript now, I think the one thing that the Fogbow reports did not convey was the sense of passion and urgency from Taitz. I got a little of this same speech when I talked to her on the phone. I think Taitz really believes that Paul Irey is a qualified expert and that Sheriff Arpaio conducted a professional investigation. She fully believes that Obama is a fraud and that she’s being thwarted by complacency and corruption.

The problem is that Irey is biased and no expert. Arpaio’s investigators were not qualified, and even presented faked evidence. The courts have uniformly and correctly applied the law. From a sympathetic point of view, it is somewhat a shame that Taitz, who is herself not technically competent to judge the evidence she presents, is uniformly kicked out of court, rather than having her experts cross examined, and her evidence ground to powder by competent experts representing the President. She remains in a sort of limbo where she can say that on one has really looked at her evidence, and continue to believe in it.

One thing from the transcript is abundantly clear: Judge England did look at her evidence. He said:

Court’s also read all of the articles that have been written about this that were submitted, has reviewed the DVD tape that you sent to the Court as tapes yesterday, read a number of other articles about the cases, read the cases themselves that you’ve been in…

Also when Orly presented her posters, the Judge knew that they came from Irey.

Personally, I think Taitz has made a huge mistake relying on volunteer experts. She spends money flying them across the country when there is no question in anybody’s mind that they are not certified and their methodology is not recognized. Every cent she spends and every word she writes in her briefs based on these people is a waste, an utter and complete waste. What Taitz should do is hire a certified electronic document examiner. I don’t know what it would cost, but it would certainly cost a lot less than she has spent to date on placebos. If that expert says the document is a forgery, then the news media would listen and then her movement might go somewhere. If that expert says that there is no evidence of forgery, then she could get her life back.

Learn more:

Print Friendly

, , ,

18 Responses to Flash: Grinols hearing transcript

  1. avatar
    Andrew Morris January 17, 2013 at 5:14 pm #

    It gets better. In a footnote, he essentially says she’s a liar:

    “Plaintiffs’ counsel has other good faith problems” referring to when she said (on Jan 3) that she could swear under penalty of perjury that everyone had been properly served before the hearing, and then on Jan 4 filed an affidavit that notices had been served on Jan 3 itself.

  2. avatar
    justlw January 17, 2013 at 5:18 pm #

    OK, I’d seen the BsotG, so I figured there wasn’t going to be much else that was new, but reading the whole thing unfold In Their Own Words is even more awesome.

    For instance, I discover that she was very excited to have “a sworn affidavit from the chief investigator for the Coast Guard”! And mortified that the judge couldn’t see any value in it!

    This is of course, the usual Orly Title Inflation in action. It’s Stephen Coffman, whose résumé, at least on paper, is not all that unimpressive, but he’s not, nor ever has been, the “Coast Guard chief investigator.” In his words, he was, in the past, a reserve duty chief investigator for the Coast Guard, until he retired a couple of years ago, and per his own affidavit should actually be referred to as “a private investigator working on his own.”

    And what he’s pedaling, still, right here in January 2013, is the Handcrafted Artisan Makiki Datestamp Theory, with a side order of “I don’t know what this here extra 8 is even though it’s been quite adequately explained by the Selective Service, because I guess I had my fingers stuck in my ears when they explained it years ago, la la la.”

    What I did learn from his affidavit is that he tumbled to The Great Conspiracy because he heard then-senator Obama say on TV he registered with the Selective Service when he graduated from high school — and it turns out he actually registered the summer after that! And there’s no way anyone but a Kenyan Marxist would say “when he graduated” when he really meant “after he graduated”! You could call this a figure of speech, or even a mistake, but Coffman is well aware that even the most inconsequential errors really mean things. Bad things.

    In that part of the affidavit, he writes, “During my active military service with the US Army from 1973 to 1977, I served as a collateral duty as one of my unit’s mail clerk.” It’s an inconsequential error, though, so I doubt if it means anything.

    By the way, it looks like although “Chief Investigator” is surely a worthy rank, not only is it obviously not what Orly’s imagination has inflated it to — The Top Cop of the Whole Coast Guard — it’s not even the highest rank one could aspire to in the rank and file of Coast Guard Investigatin’:

    440190 Master Chief Investigator
    440191 Senior Chief Investigator
    440192 Chief Investigator
    440193 First Class Investigator
    440194 Second Class Investigator
    440195 Third Class Investigator
    440196 Seaman Investigator
    440197 Seaman Apprentice Investigator

  3. avatar
    justlw January 17, 2013 at 5:46 pm #

    …and yeah, the last part means I was almost as ignorant of Naval/CG rank as Orly. But I like to think I can be taught.

    Executive summary: a “chief investigator” is a Chief Petty Officer with a rating of “Investigator.” So Coffman was an IVC, a senior NCO in the Coast Guard who investigated things.

  4. avatar
    donna January 17, 2013 at 5:56 pm #

    Doc: I feel as if I had already read this, so excellent are the Fogbow boots on the ground report on the case

    i agree and it was reassuring that tatiz paid for this transcript and that it WAS exactly as the folks at Fogbow said it was and not that the hearing was somehow misinterpreted by “obots”

  5. avatar
    Paul January 17, 2013 at 7:38 pm #

    “then she could get her life back”…

    Yeah, like she’s ever going to accept an opinion that goes against her conviction.

  6. avatar
    john January 17, 2013 at 9:57 pm #

    Quite a transcript. Orly Taitz kicks Judge England’s a***.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 17, 2013 at 10:05 pm #

    Not surprisingly, I didn’t see it that way.

    john: Quite a transcript. Orly Taitz kicks Judge England’s a***.

  8. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 17, 2013 at 10:45 pm #

    john:
    Quite a transcript.Orly Taitz kicks Judge England’s a***.

    Funny because it was orly who lost the case

  9. avatar
    Arthur January 18, 2013 at 2:27 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Funny because it was orly who lost the case

    You want funny, think of how john would characterize other losses in history:

    “Single bomb dropped at Hiroshima; vast majority of Japan unscathed.”

    “Alabama fails to prevent Notre Dame from scoring.”

    “Mitt Romney triumphant in southern states.”

    “Lance Armstrong will retain vivid memories of Tour de France triumphs.”

    “Bernie Madoff granted all-inclusive retirement package from government.”

  10. avatar
    Majority Will January 18, 2013 at 4:02 am #

    Arthur: You want funny, think of how john would characterize other losses in history:

    “Single bomb dropped at Hiroshima; vast majority of Japan unscathed.”

    “Alabama fails to prevent Notre Dame from scoring.”

    “Mitt Romney triumphant in southern states.”

    “Lance Armstrong will retain vivid memories of Tour de France triumphs.”

    “Bernie Madoff granted all-inclusive retirement package from government.”

    Well done.

  11. avatar
    Saint James January 18, 2013 at 4:10 am #

    john: Quite a transcript. Orly Taitz kicks Judge England’s a***.

    Did I miss something from what I’ve read John? Please direct me to that part where Orly seemed to have won an argument.

    I think Judge England had some serious doubts about Orly’s honestly in court as stated in page 10. Read that paragraph with a footnote #5 then go down to that footnote. Read it John. I’d love to hear a feedback about that!

  12. avatar
    The Magic M January 18, 2013 at 4:42 am #

    Arthur: “Alabama fails to prevent Notre Dame from scoring.”

    I remember that old joke from back in the Cold War days (which illustrates which school of propaganda john’s claims come from):

    Pravda News: “Brezhnev and Reagan ran a one-on-one race around the Kremlin. Our great leader made a formidable second place. The capitalist pig came in second-to-last.”

    ;)

  13. avatar
    Keith January 18, 2013 at 5:36 am #

    The Magic M: I remember that old joke from back in the Cold War days (which illustrates which school of propaganda john’s claims come from):

    Pravda News: “Brezhnev and Reagan ran a one-on-one race around the Kremlin. Our great leader made a formidable second place. The capitalist pig came in second-to-last.”

    I am sure I read that joke in “My Weekly Reader” in 1959. Only it was about a track meet between the Soviets and the Americans.

    In a particular race the glorious Soviet runner came in a credible second, but the capitalist pig Americanski runner came second last.

    IIRC, it was a discussion of freedom of the press, and the difference between the Soviet and American systems, not a joke column.

  14. avatar
    Saint James January 18, 2013 at 6:18 am #

    Saint James: I think Judge England had some serious doubts about Orly’s honestly in court as stated in page 10. Read that paragraph with a footnote #5 then go down to that footnote. Read it John. I’d love to hear a feedback about that!

    John, I was referring to Judge England’s written order.

  15. avatar
    brygenon January 18, 2013 at 1:01 pm #

    john: Quite a transcript. Orly Taitz kicks Judge England’s a***.

    That kind of thinking is common among legal cranks. They fight with the judges, not realizing it means they’re losing.

  16. avatar
    brygenon January 18, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

    Arthur: “Single bomb dropped at Hiroshima; vast majority of Japan unscathed.”

    “Alabama fails to prevent Notre Dame from scoring.”

    Funny, but John’s deal is even weirder. Whether boxer’s punches had snap isn’t even an issue when he was swinging at the referee.

  17. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 18, 2013 at 10:22 pm #

    “it is somewhat a shame that Taitz, who is herself not technically competent to judge the evidence she presents, is uniformly kicked out of court, rather than having her experts cross examined, and her evidence ground to powder by competent experts representing the President. She remains in a sort of limbo where she can say that on one has really looked at her evidence, and continue to believe in it.”

    While I have occasionally hoped for just that (what entertainment it would be!), this would do nothing positive for Orly or any birther. The resulting fodder would just contribute mortar to a new wing on the already sprawling Birfer Persecution Complex. The ‘experts’ were actors spouting nonsense, the hearing was fixed, etc.

    The one-time I drew jury duty, I was assigned to a car wreck case, that turned out to be little more than an attempt at “theft by jury”. A middle-aged woman was suing a teen girl. Well, she had been a teen at the time of the accident … the case had been in litigation for 7 years!

    The woman had rear-ended the girl. She was suing for medical bills she had racked up all over town since the accident. An impact so slight, it didn’t even leave a scrape on either car! I was wondering how the girl even knew she had been hit … or even if she was really hit at all. The woman said the girl had pull out in front of her .. but then testified she had changed lanes into the same lane the girl was turning out into. This ‘impact’ had caused her arthritis to flare up, supposedly permanently!

    The woman’s attorney presented an ‘expert’ … the woman’s latest chiropractor (she had had several), a very young guy less than 2 years out of school. It was easily demonstrated that the kid was trying to get his practice established, had to take every client he could, and stood to make a killing if the plaintiff succeeded, as he had invoice her more than $10K.

    The defense also presented an expert via video deposition (real experts tend to have better things to do than entertain fools). He was a respected orthopedic surgeon on staff of a state university. It was made clear that he was paid a standard fee for his opinion. After some preliminaries, he ripped apart the plaintiff’s claims and stated the obvious: she was old, aging, suffered from degenerative arthritis, and that her condition was mostly the result of her lifestyle decisions. She was physically degenerate, overweight and out of shape, and in denial about all of it.

    The jury had to sit through 3 days of this silliness. The first day, we were taking it seriously. The second day, it was clear to everyone something was very bizarre about all this. By the third day, the day the defense expert opinion was presented, our demeanor matched his exactly: yougottabefuggin’kiddin’me.

    The idea of a knock-down, drawn-out, let’em get it all off their chests birfer hearing seems like a laugh, but the reality would be murder. That all hearings to date have been perfunctory and time delimited has been a sweet and tender mercy.

  18. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund January 18, 2013 at 11:49 pm #

    brygenon: Funny, but John’s deal is even weirder. Whether boxer’s punches had snap isn’t even an issue when he was swinging at the referee.

    So basically, the birthers are going into a boxing match thinking it’s WWE rules.