Here’s the documentation:
- Orly Taitz filed an August 25th motion in the Taitz v. Johnson et al. case to have 4 subpoenas served. In that motion, she wrote: “Four border patrol officers would like to testify at the August 27, 2014 hearing in this case.” She further wrote: “All of the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and informed consent (sic).”
- Judge Hanen granted the motion, noting: “It is represented to the Court that none of the individuals for whom Plaintiff is seeking subpoenas is objecting to the limitation found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1) (providing that a subpoena may command a non-party to attend a hearing only within 100 miles of where the person resides….).”
- One of the 4 named officers, Ronald Zermeno, begs to differ in an affidavit filed in Court today: “Prior to receiving this e-mail [from a Border Patrol union representative on August 25th with a copy of the subpoena attached] I had no interaction with Orly Taitz, whom I understand to be the plaintiff in the present case.” … “I live in Lake Elsinore, California which is more than 100 miles away…” “I never waived the application of Rule 45(c)(1), particularly since I have had no discussions or interactions with Dr. Taitz.” “It is my personal wish not to testify at the hearing….”
That seems to be pretty serious to me. Taitz had previously applied to be admitted Pro Hac Vice in the case, but this was denied at today’s hearing.