Main Menu

Archive | Orly Taitz

Klayman’s Kopy Kat lawsuit

It seems that Larry Klayman exhibits a curious pattern of behavior, following Orly Taitz around and copying her lawsuits.

Taitz, as you know, was one of the early attorneys filing lawsuits over Barack Obama’s eligibility, starting with the Alan Keyes lawsuit in California. Taitz later became plaintiff in her own lawsuits over the issue. Larry Klayman followed suit (no pun intended) in 2012 representing Michael Voeltz in Florida, and most recently himself petitioning to have Barack Obama deported, probably as a prelude to filing a lawsuit on his own behalf.

Now it’s happened again. Orly Taitz broke new ground with her lawsuit against the government to stop immigration from countries with active Ebola outbreaks and to quarantine them. She certainly caught the leading edge of that one, before the first person became sick in the United States of the disease. Now Klayman, writing in his WorldNetDaily column, says he is preparing a similar suit in response to what he calls “Ebola-gate.” He writes:

In the interim, I am fashioning a lawsuit to force Obama to curtail travel and immigration from Liberia and the rest of West Africa until we know we can combat the deadly Ebola outbreak. And, immigration from all Muslim nations where terrorists have a beachhead must also be immediately stopped.

Oh, yes, he has a thing about Muslims too.

8

Taitz takes the stand

Larry Klayman sued Judicial Watch over something Orly Taitz wrote on her blog. In the trial, Orly Taitz (not a party to the defamation suit) was called as a witness. The transcript from May 30, 2014, makes interesting reading in a twisted sort of way.

The big picture is that Orly Taitz, quoting Freedom Watch staffer Constance Ruffley, wrote that Larry Klayman had been “convicted just recently of not paying a large amount in child support.” This statement was put in the context of raising doubts over whether people should donate money to support Klayman in filing Obama eligibility lawsuits. More details can be found in this article from Courthouse News Service and my articles tagged Klayman v. Judicial Watch. Taitz repeated a number of other negatives about Klayman, focusing on the fact that at the time Taitz was writing, Klayman had not filed some lawsuits that he was supposed to have filed. It was the child support issue, however, that was at the center, because what Taitz wrote was not true: Klayman was indicted, but not convicted.

Shortly after the Taitz article appeared, Klayman contacted Taitz to demand a retraction of her story because it wasn’t true. Taitz didn’t retract the entire story, but issued a correction, saying that Klayman “has not been convicted yet.”

The testimony establishes from Taitz what Ruffley told her. It attempts to establish (unsuccessfully from my vantage point) how long it took for Taitz to correct the article after Klayman contacted her. Klayman appears to assign great significance to the word “yet” in “not convicted yet” while Taitz seems to think it means nothing. This difference may be one of bias, or Taitz may not understand the connotation the word has in English.

Klayman (as Taitz has done in other cases) interrupts the judge—in this case drawing repeated warnings from Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. After the jury was excused, the judge chastised Klayman about interruptions, in the strongest terms. By my count, Klayman interrupted the judge twice during this final admonition. Nowhere does Orly Taitz speak her signature “let me finish” because Judge Altonaga was bound and determined that Taitz not be interrupted. Klayman did, however, use the phrase.

Taitz demonstrates her questionable legal skills in trying to define a “crime,” asserting that one can be convicted of something that wasn’t a crime. She also seems to think a class 5 felony in Ohio is a misdemeanor.

It has been often said in comments on this blog that Orly Taitz is jealous of her donations and defensive about her place as the only birther attorney actually doing anything. Klayman asked her point blank:

Q. So you were resentful that money donated to me for eligibility lawsuits wasn’t going to go to you, right?

and Taitz replied:

A. Absolutely not.

Who knew? Here’s the transcript courtesy of the Jack Ryan collection.

SD FL DOC 145 – Klayman v Judicial Watch – Testimony of Orly Taitz – S.D.fla._1-13-Cv-20610_145 by Jack Ryan

The jury found that Larry Klayman was defamed and that he should receive compensatory damages in the amount of $156,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $25,000.

16

The Doc and the dentist

I had a dental checkup yesterday. During the cleaning, I asked the long-time dental hygienist to talk about the situation when sick patients (with colds or viruses) come for treatment.

She started off by saying that most patients reschedule their appointments when they are sick, but that some arrive sick, and her first concern (as I described someone coughing and sneezing a lot) was to adjust the position of the chair to help the patient be more comfortable so that fluids could drain properly. I asked if she had ever gotten sick from one her patients, and she said it probably had happened. She talked about the old days before gloves and face shields. She said that infection can usually be avoided if one takes precautions (like not touching an arm with the glove). She also said that she thinks that dental practitioners build up an immunity over time.

I like to do “normal” every now and then on the blog.

Taitz transcribed, with typos

I noticed today that the transcript of the Taitz v. Johnson hearing on August 27 has been made available as part of the Jack Ryan collection at Scribd. As you may recall, the hearing was almost 4 and a half hours, and the transcript runs 170 pages.

The typo on page one was “Dr. Oraly Taitz.”

I trust that interested readers will view the text for themselves. I want to  start out with one quote from page 6 suggesting the effect Orly Taitz has on the legal system:

Let me finish.

— Judge Andrew S. Hanen

One area of interest is a question we have discussed here, exactly how Taitz knows she is treating illegal immigrants. The Court posed the question succinctly (page 27):

How do you – and you know these are alien children because of what? … Do they have some kind of form that’s filled out …

Taitz answers the second part first, saying the patients have a Denti-Cal card. Then she says:

I also take health history where they’re telling me that they just came in.

Taitz claims to have treated hundreds of these kids.

The majority of the transcript regards the questioning of three government witnesses regarding the processing and health screening of unaccompanied minors and family units. The Government, Taitz, and Judge Hanen all had an active role in that questioning.

The next important section is where Judge Hanen denies the motion for a temporary restraining order because he says that the Taitz complaint is not likely to prevail on the merits. Here is his carefully-worded statement:

And that’s – in doing that, I’m actually saying two things. One, questioning, Dr. Taitz, whether you have standing. And, two, while I’m doing that, I’m also questioning it in regards to what I can actually say is a fair reading of your complaint. And the reason I’m going to such lengths to explain that is I’m not positive that you might now, with a better drafted complaint – and I use the word better. I don’t mean that as a criticism. But as a more concise, directed complaint, you might be a good plaintiff or you might standing, but I don’t think you have standing based on what’s before the Court right now.

The Judge further stated that he did not need to hear from Taitz’ witnesses because nothing they could say would “cure your complaint.” Then, remarkably, Judge Hanen give hints (his words) on drafting the complaint. After suggesting she leave out the press reports and the political stuff, he said (having noted early on that Taitz had not alleged negligence):

The only way I see this going forward beyond that – this next stage is kind of what I was talking to Mr. Kisor earlier about, and that is, is if you’re going to have some expert support for your damages. Otherwise I don’t see you having standing even under an amended complaint.

Now, I know that – I actually gave this some thought before the hearing because I was trying to figure out – it’s kind of the cart before the horse. Which do you hear first, the standing issue or – let’s say I rule on standing. The first thing Mr. Hu is going to do – and he’s an old medical malpractice lawyer, and I know what he’s going to do. He’s going to file a motion for summary judgment, saying, hey, you’ve got no proof of this. And unless you have medical proof that somehow these acts caused injuries, you lose anyway.

So, I mean, I’m not necessarily being Carnac the prognosticator to predict that if you get by the motion to dismiss stage, you’re going to get turned around and hit with a motion for summary judgment. Quite frankly, a lot of times in these instances, I’ll just say I’m going to consider the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. And this is the kind of case I might do it in.

For an index to extended comments by an independent observer, Tomtech, see the end of my article “Unfunded mandate.”

Taitz claims they’re all out to get her

Here’s the quote from her amended complaint (2nd part) in the Johnson case:

It is widely believed that each District Court and each U.S. Attorney’s office has individuals who are embedded in those offices and who are working for (National Security Agency) and FBI and not only gather information, but also tamper with records, similar to NSA tampering with phone records and e-mails, as reported by the federal whistle-blower Edward Snowden.

Taitz goes on to say that this is why it appears that she sent some material directly to the judge that didn’t get on the docket. I wonder how Judge Hanen will react to that allegation of an NSA mole in his court? I wonder how Judge Hanen will react to Taitz misspelling his name on the amended complaint?

In addition, Taitz alleges that a potential witness was pressured to lie in an affidavit to make her look bad. I previously reported that Taitz represented to the court that Immigration officer, Ronald Zermeno , was willing to testify for her and to travel from California. In an affidavit, he said:

I never waived the application of Rule 45(c)(1), particularly since I have had no discussions or interactions with Dr. Taitz.

Taitz claims he was pressured to say that:

Under duress and under pressure of possible employment termination Zermeno signed a declaration where he claimed that he did not know who Taitz was until Judge Hanen ordered subpoenas to be signed on August 25, 2014 and that he did not want to testify.

In fact, several days prior to signing of the order to issue subpoenas, through written text messages and phone conversations with fellow border patrol officers, Zermeno agreed to appear at August 27, 2014 hearing before Judge Hanen and was willing to produce evidence of aforementioned violations by the defendants.

Taitz misrepresents the Zermeno affidavit that nowhere says he had never heard of Orly Taitz, and didn’t know who she was. Further, it appears clear that Zermeno was never properly served with the subpoena.

Expert says Orly has a “good case” that immigrant children are spreading rare disease

imageThe chart at the right came from the Centers for Disease Control. EV-D68 is a strain of enterovirus, first isolated in the United States in 1962. There has been a bit of an outbreak of the generally uncommon virus recently. It is a respiratory virus whose symptoms can range from mild to severe.

Orly Taitz has enlisted the services of Vera Dolan, an epidemiologist writing Taitz in an email:

I have done a little research on the enterovirus outbreak. This strain of enterovirus (EV-D68) is uncommon. I believe that you have a good case to make that this outbreak is associated with the influx of illegal alien children.

I suppose that an epidemiologist trying to make the case that illegal immigrant children were spreading the virus would first want to demonstrate that the children had the virus, or came from a place where the virus was prevalent, and then show that these new cases were showing up in places where the children were being transported, and to try to rule out other possibilities. Dolan attempts to explain the lack of cases along the US border by acquired immunity in those areas due to exposure to historical illegal immigration.

In a 2011 report in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), clusters of the disease were diagnosed in the United States, the Philippines, Japan, and the Netherlands. U. S. cases (Sept. 2009) were in Georgia (6 cases), Pennsylvania (28 cases), and Arizona (5 cases). I wasn’t able to find any support for the idea that EV-D68 is common (or even present) in Latin America.

Dr. Ann Schuchat. director of CDC’s national center for immunization and respiratory diseases, points out that respiratory illnesses spread rapidly (and I would add that transportation of children isn’t necessary). She stated in a September 8 conference call:

Respiratory viruses can spread quite quickly across the U.S. we see a number of different respiratory viruses cycling each year or over a couple-year period. So we really do think that clinicians throughout the country need to be on the alert for increases in severe respiratory illness and consider this in the differential diagnosis. Geography isn’t that helpful when it comes to respiratory viruses. We know that flu transits the country pretty quickly and the unusual increases in Kansas City and Chicago may be occurring elsewhere over the weeks ahead so we want people to be on the lookout.

Nowhere is the CDC even hinting that the illness is tied to illegal immigrant children. My money is on a Japanese tourist in Kansas City.

Taitz is asking the parents of children with respiratory illnesses to call her (PLEASE DO).

Amended Complaint

Dolan is quoted in Taitz’s Amended Complaint (continuation pages) as making the remarkable statement:

As an epidemiologist, I believe that Dr. Taitz’s respiratory infection originated from close contact with infected patients who were sent for treatment to her office, in particular immigrants who were detained by the DHS without quarantine or medical treatment for existing communicable diseases and then transported to California.

I believe that Dr. Taitz is in further imminent danger of similar additional infections from immigrant patients detained by the DHS without quarantine or medical treatment for existing communicable diseases.]

This is remarkable given that it was not determined what Taitz got sick from. The full affidavit from Dolan provides no indication of how Dolan arrived at her conclusions, and identified no methodology employed. If I had to characterize her statement it would be: “Taitz said she treated lots of immigrant children with coughs, and she got one too; therefore, she got sick from treating illegal immigrant children, and she will likely get sick again if these children aren’t quarantined.”

The Amended Complaint adds a new claim of negligence, but of course, she cannot sue the government for damages resulting from a policy decision. There is that pesky sovereign immunity thing.

Postscript

I studied a couple of epidemiology textbooks as part of the process of designing software to be used by public health professionals when I was in that business. I also worked for 6 years in a district health department. I have also been a consultant to the CDC on immunization systems. That means I know more than the average person about epidemiology, but am far from an expert. What I can say is that the Dolan affidavit bears no resemblance to any epidemiology methodology I have ever seen, nor does it contain anything I would identify as using the scientific method.