For whatever reason, perhaps because of Taitz’s last-minute filing of “new material information” no rulings on the motions were issued today. Grrrr. See summary later below.
The telephonic hearing in Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi case is underway, where it is expected that Judge Wingate will rule on the outstanding motions in the case, including the possible dismissal or judgment in the case and possible assessment of attorneys fees and costs. For those interested in following the story as it unfolds, I suggest that you visit The Fogbow’s “alternate chat” (requires registration) and check out their forum thread on the case, now up to 10,258 comments at this writing!
Updates (Eastern Standard Time US):
- 11:58 AM – No word yet.
- 12:04 PM – The hearing has ended.
- 12: 10 PM – Summary posted by Realist
Summary of Telephonic Hearing – 01-22-2014
Orly Taitz called in at 9:58 pm Mississippi time.
Walter Dukes and Sam Begley also on the line. Justin Matheny checked in.
Holland joined. He’s with Walter Dukes’ office.
Hearing began at 10:02 Mississippi time.
First thing to address is a blog shown to him by his law clerk. Asks Ms. Taitz about it and who Virgil E. Bird is.
“Multiple individuals who are posting on my blog.” She needs a subpoena to find out.
Judge explains some “backdrop.” Law clerk noticed some info on blog and passed on to the judge yesterday. He had never read blog till yesterday.
Judge then tells us of Virgil’s post.
Asks Taitz if she knows Virgil. She says no but she has IP address and wants a subpoena issued by the court. Taitz goes on and on about people making comments. Blah blah blah.
Taitz still going on about people pseudonymously posting on her blog. Anonymous people from various addresses. Taitz claims harassment.
Judge focuses only on 1 blog and alleged conversation with judge. He says it’s not true. He doesn’t know Virgil Bird, the once a year Yale Club meeting — he doesn’t attend. Clarion Hotel in Jackson in mid December? Judge has no knowledge of any meeting in Jackson of Yale club in Jackson for 10-12 years. Only 3 in Jackson. He doubts they meet yearly. He knows nothing of any such meeting and doubts it happened. Any conversation with judge is fiction.
Judge finds post offensive and needs to take some kind of action.
Reiterates his law clerk saw it and told judge.
Judge asks lawyers if they know anything about this matter. No one knows. Judge asks if anyone has read her blog. Only one admitting reading blog is Tepper.
Taitz then uses occasion to slime Tepper and Fogbow. Claims Fogbow writers and Tepper defame her. She wants a subpoena to Fogbow.
Taitz asks if judge read her additional materials. Judge said he will look at this afternoon.
Taitz going into her conspiracy theory of death of Lorraine Fuddy. Taitz surprised Duke didn’t notify court of Fuddy’s death.
Therefore important to continue with RICO action.
Judge asks if issuing subpoena is OK. Tepper explains briefly Taitz’s difficulty in serving subpoenas and suggests special master.
Judge wants any subpoenas issued returned straight to court. Judge will meet with US Attorney’s office and advise parties where we are on this. Judge will also immediately look at materials submitted to him on January 21st to see if it bears on outstanding motions. Therefore will need another time to report in.
Re outstanding motions — are they still outstanding:
24 no good per Taitz
40 no good per Taitz
46 Tepper says this isn’t a motion
Judge asks about 96
Tepper says it’s not a motion nor admissible, Dukes says it’s a rehash.
Dukes says this is all done for delay
Sam Begley says we have dispositive motions, and anything else is irrelevant to the dispositive motions
Taitz: Miss Fuddy was an important part of the case, she died of suspicious circumstances.
Taitz takes off, misdescribing her cases, the Maryland case, various conspiracy theories and goes on and on for 7 minutes.
Tepper mentions Hawaii case
Defense required to submit response to 96. How much time do you need?
Dukes – 2 weeks (14 days)
Other counsel may or may not respond as long as judge has a response to pleading
Court asks if Taitz wants more time for rebuttal
Taitz asks for ruling on prior motions since case may become moot but judge says notice of new materials requires judge to study and doesn’t feel comfortable ruling one way or the other till he has read new materials and had some action on blog note
Tepper suggests court may sua sponte strike 96 as having inadmissible information. Also mentions social security number in 96-1, page 3, para. 6, line 5. Judge admonishes Taitz to redact. Taitz says she will.
Another conference call will be set up.
I note that ECF 11, 20 and 24 were previously denied.
RC Radio Special tonight Canceled
Scott Tepper, one of the defense attorney in Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi, was to be RC’s guest at a special edition of Reality Check Radio tonight at 9 PM Eastern Time; however, as no decision was issued, it’s premature.