Main Menu

Tag Archives | Jack Ryan

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

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.”

Things heat up for Monday face-off in Grinols

A hearing is scheduled for next Monday, April 22, in the case of Grinols v. Electoral College and the paperwork is arriving in advance of it. The subject of the hearing, according to Judge England’s order is to hear oral arguments on the motions to dismiss, and in particular to the questions:

  • Mootness
  • Standing
  • Political question doctrine
  • Speech and Debate Clause
  • Service of process on defendants

Yesterday, Plaintiff’s attorney Orly Taitz filed an Ex-parte Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss. Why ex parte? Because Taitz says she filed the motion too late to give the Defendants proper notice, and that would only be proper in an emergency and for some kind of temporary relief.

Emergency

Taitz does not justify her tardy filing, and I dare say Judge England will have some choice words for Taitz. His order from April 4 suggests that Taitz’s emergency maneuver is unnecessary. The present argument repeats Taitz’ earlier motion to recuse, about which England wrote in his order:

Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Recuse Counsel for Defendants and Motion to Expedite under Local Rule 144” (ECF NO. 102) currently set for April 18, 2013 is VACATED in light of the hearing on the motions to dismiss.

Meanwhile the California State Defendants have filed a brief in support of the motion to dismiss saying:

  • This case is moot as to claims concerning the reelection of Barack Obama.
  • This case presents a nonjusticiable political question.
  • Plaintiffs fail to state an equal protection claim for “invalid” registration.
  • Plaintiffs do not state a claim under 5 U.S.C. § 3328.

Just a word on that last one. Federal law says that people born after 1959 who did not comply with the draft registration cannot be appointed to a position in an “Executive agency.” The California Defendants point out that Obama was elected, not appointed. I would point out that the Office of the President is not an Executive agency. This contention has Taitz all upset, railing that California says Obama can get away with selective-service fraud [Link to Taitz web site]. Taitz is wrong. California didn’t say selective-service fraud is “OK,” just that Taitz is wrong on the law. A President can be prosecuted for fraud after leaving office.

On other fronts, Taitz is dabbling in rumors about the Boston Marathon bombing yesterday, emphasizing her themes of anti-Muslim bigotry and official complicity in crimes.

Taitz under attack, surrounded–threats loom

While I’m at the dentist’s office, you can read this tale of Orly Taitz inserting herself where she is not wanted, but herself found wanting a legal theory to support her action.

Thanks to the Jack Ryan collection for this tidbit that contains some perhaps over-the-top language, which I borrowed for the headline.

Taitz’ motion is subject to attack on many fronts; between Plaintiffs and the Defendants, she is surrounded.

In sum, Taitz has not articulated any specific common question of law or fact, much less one compelling enough to overcome the looming threats of delay and undue prejudice.

Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge

Judicial Watch v King (SD Ind) – Order Denying Taitz Motion to Intevene by Jack Ryan

Taitz: Grinols emergency appellate filing

So what else is new? Orly’s trying to get the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to demand that Judge England do something or other in the case of Grinols v. Electoral College. It’s an emergency because Obama, well, Obama is PRESIDENTING! What Taitz is asking the Court of Appeals to do is order the Trial Court to declare Obama in default in the Grinols case, even though she clearly never served him with the complaint in the capacity in which she is suing him. She also wants the US Attorney investigated for his courtesy appearance for President Obama.

Oh, did I mention that she copied the International Criminal Bar and the UN Commission for Civil Rights Defenders1? What do you get if you do a Google image search for "united nations Commission for Civil Rights Defenders"?

image

The brief is 162 pages long with attachments such as the Zullo affidavit, Irey stuff, a screen print of an article by Jerome Corsi, Census forms, FOIA dumps—in fact just about every imaginable thing EXCEPT a proof of service showing that Obama had been served in his personal capacity and is in default. What a maroon!

OK, correction. Sometimes the crazy gets too strong to report it. Taitz is not suing Obama in his personal capacity; she is suing him as a candidate. On what planet is Barack Obama a candidate?

Continue Reading →

Taitz makes amends

So we all remember Orly Taitz’ lawsuit in California, Grinols v. Electoral College, where she, several minor party candidates and one Democratic presidential candidate in one state were suing to prevent Barack Obama from becoming President, by stopping California from sending its electoral votes to the Senate, stopping the Congress from counting the electoral votes, and preventing Obama from taking the oath of office. The US District Court for the Eastern District of California didn’t stay any of those things and they all took place, making a hash of what Taitz was trying to do in her lawsuit.

The State of California moved to dismiss as to them on the grounds of mootness, but before the Court could rule on that, Taitz has filed her First Amended Complaint (Feb. 11). Given the significant change in the landscape between her original complaint and the subsequent inauguration of Barack Obama for his second term as President, one would expect that the Amended Complaint (embedded below) would take this into account.

First Taitz emphasizes (using boldface type) that Barack Obama is being sued in his individual capacity, as a candidate for office, not as President. Tait should have learned from the loss of her appeal of Barnett v. Obama that after the election persons are no longer candidates. Taitz claims Obama is in default as to the original complaint. Of course the court doesn’t give special consideration for boldfaced type. Taitz doesn’t understand that once she files the amended complaint, the original complaint goes away and the court isn’t going to declare Obama in default under it, even if she had served him with that original complaint (which she did not). She should know that about the amended complaint, since she lost an appeal in Liberi v. Taitz for that very reason (or she should know it because she went to law school).

The first novelty in the case is the expanded list of aliases for the President:

  • Barack (Barry) Soetoro
  • Barack Hussein Soebarkah
  • Barack Hussein Obama
  • Barack A. Obama
  • Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel
  • S. A. Dunham (?)

Other defendants are:

  • The Governor of California
  • The Electoral College
  • The Congress

Taitz recounts her fantasies about Obama as if they were fact, but I guess the meat of the matter is what relief Taitz is now seeking. She is seeking declaratory relief. Specifically, Taitz is asking the Court to declare that President Obama fraudulently applied to be a candidate in California. I always thought (but then I am not a lawyer) that declaratory relief was something to prevent an imminent future controversy and that what Taitz is trying to do is moot. But she clearly demonstrates that it is not with the bald faced bold faced declaration: “Declaratory relief in this case is not moot.” The actual discussion of this point doesn’t seem to have any further legal argument, but is only a narrative of what happened from Taitz’ point of view. Nowhere does Taitz lay out how the Plaintiffs have standing to request a declaratory judgment.

The other prong of her lawsuit, and this is where the Governor of California comes in, is an unrelated matter concerning the voter rolls in California. Public records show that large number of California voter registration records are incomplete in one way or another, for example lacking valid birth dates of the registrants. Taitz requests injunctive relief to “clean up the rolls” and the entire description of this injunctive relief is inserted in the following hypothetical:

Unless there is a declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to clean up California roles and having a special election, the same invalid and/or fraudulent voter registrations will be used in further elections.

Taitz never details what the special election is for. I am further at a loss as to why the Electoral College (which is not an entity that can be sued) nor the Congress are parties. Taitz herself has no standing to sue Barack Obama, but she tags on anyway.

I won’t go into the punctuation and grammar, which is bad. The whole thing is in insult to the Court, so sloppily it is constructed and argued. It’s pathetic.

Read the First Amended Complaint:

Continue Reading →