One may recall that Larry Klayman was the founder of a right-wing court watchdog group called Judicial Watch, and some know that he left that organization and turned around and sued it1 (he also sued his mother). But why is Klayman issuing a subpoena to Orly Taitz, and why is she not honoring it? Klayman wants her held in contempt of court.
The question of why Taitz blew off the subpoena, to be taken in Los Angeles, is given in the filing: she wanted $93.76 in witness fees, but it is also alleged that she attempted to evade service.
The reason for the subpoena in the first place goes to the claims in the lawsuit. In the amended complaint Klayman sues for defamation. He says that defendants defamed him by telling stories that he was “‘convicted’ of a crime for not paying a large amount of child support.” (Note that “convicted” is in quotes but “crime” is not.) Where was this scurrilous tale published? On Orly Taitz’ blog, of course. The complaint doesn’t explain the connection between defendants and Orly Taitz, but that is described in an affidavit from one of the defendants, Constance Ruffley.
Ruffley avers that she had a conversation with Taitz at a monthly California Coalition for Immigration Reform1 meeting in Garden City, in which Klayman was discussed, and the public record of his nonpayment of child support was mentioned. Ruffley denies that she called it a “crime.” Ruffley also said that she didn’t expect Taitz to publish the conversation.
Who could possibly think that Orly Taitz would fail to keep private remarks in confidence or distort what was said? I, for one, could (and have the scars to prove it). But it becomes clear why the testimony of Taitz is essential in the proceeding. What Ruffley said, and her intent in saying it to Taitz is the essential point of fact in the case.
I did not find a screen shot among the readily available documents in the case, but I think this article [link to Taitz web site] is the one, and it it she said:
Ms. Ruffley actually advised me that Larry Klayman is not licensed in California, she told me that he no longer works with the Judicial Watch and that donors should know about litigation in Ohio, where he was convicted just recentlty (sic) of not paying large amount in child support. She provided a lot of other information. I will publish only, what is a public record. I am not publishing anything, that is not in public record.
A number of individuals sent me this information:
Larry Klayman, 60, of Los Angeles, California, was indicted on two (2) counts of criminal non-support. He owes $78,861.76 for his two children ages 11 and 14. Two hearings were held in Domestic Relations Court between 2009 and 2010. The last voluntary payment was made on August 30, 2011, in the amount of $1,014.26. Arraignment is scheduled for February 7, 2012.
That’s clearly at odds with what Ruffley said that she said. It’s a pickle.
Meanwhile, the Court is not ready to hold Taitz in contempt until after attempts at mediation according to the rules; Klayman’s motion was premature, says the judge.
Note: Orly Taitz is not a party to this lawsuit (yet).
1The California Coalition for Immigration Reform is a non-profit organization founded by the late Barbara Coe whose aim is to reduce immigration. Three is a Wikipedia article on the CCIR, but their own web site returns “no longer available.” View the CCIR site on the Wayback Machine.
Birther infighting. I LOVE it!
Orly, the queen of the misguided subpoena, ever-shocked that hers get no respect, fails to honor a subpoena. Hippo-crite!
It’s really too bad that Klayman didn’t include Taitz as a defendant in this case. He probably figured that someone as nuts as she is must be nearly destitute. Too bad he didn’t do his research. He’d have found out she’s a millionaire. He also may not have understood how incompetent and dishonest Orly is. If this comes down to believing Ms. Ruffley’s version or Taitz’s version, he will lose, given Taitz’s well-documented history of dishonesty.
Doc: The answer to the question you pose in the title is ‘no.’ At least not yet. The court denied Klayman’s motion. http://ia601702.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.415547/gov.uscourts.flsd.415547.60.0.pdf
As I read the court order (IANAL) Klayman sought his order two days before Taitz didn’t show up. I thought that was a Taitz thing, moving to compel her subpoena to Occidental before it was even served.
Klayman definitely bungled this. I think he was counting on delaying the discovery deadline in this case. For a deposition from a non-party who is out of state and who probably has something to hide (meaning, I think Taitz lied when she said the erroneous statement came from Ruffley), he should have started the paperwork on this months ago. One of the ways he harasses defendants in his BS lawsuits it through delay after delay after delay, but this judge has denied several of his motions for extensions. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if we see a motion for recusal from him based on some trumped up charge of anti-Semitism or some sort of bias against him for being politically conservative. It’s his standard MO.
It’s like watching Rodan and Anguirus fight.
Thanks. I have updated the article with this additional information. I also removed the embedded motion for contempt, leaving just a link to it since it is less important not that it has been denied.
I’d pay good money to watch Taitz and Klayman do battle in court. The level of incompetence would be nothing short of epic comedy! You could call it “Disorder in the Court II”
It’s hard to figure out why Klayman didn’t sue Orly. The whole reason for her posting that information was because she was jealous of him asking for money through the Obama Ballot Challenge website or where ever it was so he could do is ballot challenge in Florida.
The problem I have with this particular pile of sludge, is that when all is said and done it boils down to a she said she said scenario to which there is really no positive solution, except the utterly fantastic one that one of them suddenly breaks down and tells the truth, and this is how likely to happen????
As near as I can tell Ruffley claims she said one thing and Taitz claims she said something else. Unless there was someone lurking in the background eavesdropping or there was an illicit recording, I don’t see how this is really going anywhere, or will go anywhere.
I think KKKlayman screwed up again and was trying to play the court and it didn’t work, and may even yet blow up in his face. If what I have seen so far is any indication, the last thing he wants is for this to actually go to trial as I don’t see any of it ending well for him.
Maybe Orly is hoping that, if she blows off the appearance, her rival Klayman will wind up losing to an empty table like she did in Georgia, and she can share that dubious distinction 😈
One has to compare carefully what Klayman claimed and what Taitz wrote. Klayman said : “‘convicted’ of a crime for not paying a large amount of child support,” where the phrase “of a crime” is not in Orly’s text, although she says Klayman was indicted for criminal non-support. I don’t know that Taitz’ story will differ from Ruffley’s deposition.
I think it’s kinda cute that “Orly Taitz” is an anti-immigrant activist. What, is she afraid they’ll spread sedition against our democratically elected government?
Taitz isn’t the target; Klayman just wants to make hell for Judicial Watch.