Main Menu

Tag Archives | Liberi v Taitz

Obots offer witness protection to embattled birthers

Whatcha Gonna Do When They Come for You?

First, the title is just kidding. Obots don’t have any authority to offer anything in the way of protection to birthers. I’m just a retired guy who blogs. What I wanted to mention was two recent items where birthers are being singled out by other birthers as criminals.

The first is the obvious Douglas Vogt unsealed affidavit that charges Birther Princess Miki Booth with being part of the group forging Obama’s birth certificate. Some birthers were happy to take that and run with it.

The second is the charge from Carl Gallups that Douglas Vogt said things that were untrue in his unsealed affidavit before the U. S. Supreme Court. Gallups is right, by the way.

Meanwhile one wonders how many more birthers are going to get on the “Zullo is just stringing us on” bandwagon. That sentiment certainly has Carl Gallups upset.

Birthers have never gotten along that well because the prominent birthers want to be leaders, and you can’t have everybody being a leader. Conspiracy theorists are by nature lone researchers and they do not take kindly to competing theories. The messiest example was of course the lawsuit between several birthers, including Orly Taitz, Lisa Liberi and Phil Berg. Then just yesterday we had that whiny rant from Carl Gallups declaring Mike Zullo (and Gallups as his sole spokesperson) the only one who has accomplished anything for the birther movement, calling the rest “jealous.”

Conspiracy theories tend to develop factions—just look at all the Kennedy Assassination theories, or the LIH v. MIH factions for 9/11. Birthers are no different. Their theories include:

  • Obama was born in Kenya
  • Obama was born in Hawaii fathered by Frank Marshall Davis
  • Obama was fathered by Malcolm X
  • Obama isn’t related to the Dunhams
  • Obama was born in Hawaii to Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. but ineligible anyway
  • Hawaii is/is not in on it
  • Nancy Owens forged the birth certificate
  • Miki Booth and friend forged the birth certificate

Continue Reading →

Taitz gets lump of coal for birthday

Taitz v. Obama appeal postponed

Here’s what Orly said [link to Taitz web site]:

Suddenly, on my birthday (yet again, never fails), another road block was placed in front of me.   My September 26 hearing in Taitz v Obama was postponed till October. No explanation was given aside from a short note that it was done.

She has a point. It was on her birthday, August 30, 2011, when Judge Royce Lamberth dismissed Taitz v. Astrue. I wrote about that in my article “Taitz gets sucky birthday present.” On her birthday in 2012, Orly reports that someone called her on the phone and cussed her out and in 2010, she says her Facebook account was suspended [link to Taitz web site].

I got a cake for my birthday this year and a replica Dr. Who (Tom Baker) scarf.

Note: The case is G047746, and you can search for it here.

Update:

Oral argument rescheduled for October 23, 2013. On Sept. 10 Taitz filed a motion for leave to submit a supplemental brief and CD with “newly discovered information.” It was denied.

Birther Berg bounced

There was a misfire some months ago with the premature reporting of the suspension of birther attorney Philip J. Berg based on the findings of a Pennsylvania disciplinary board. That two-year suspension from the practice of law is now final as of June 19, as  ordered by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The suspension is not related to birther lawsuits.

It is likely that this precipitated the notice filed in the case of Liberi v. Taitz the following day that attorney Stephen H. Marcus will be representing Berg and other plaintiffs.

I don’t provide much coverage of the Liberi lawsuit because it is an internal squabble between individuals, and not really about Obama. Berg, however, is an important figure in the birther movement, popularizing many of the main points of the “born in Kenya” conspiracy theory.

Will the real Lisa Liberi please stand up?

Taitz and Berg were back in court yesterday before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals presenting oral arguments in the case of Liberi v. Taitz. Taitz, in an unusual display of good sense, had another lawyer to speak for her.

As of September 2012, the number of court docket entries in this long-running lawsuit had reached 982, and I am confident that it’s well over 1,000 by now. One would have thought this was a simple case: Orly Taitz said that Lisa Liberi, Phil Berg’s paralegal, was a convicted felon, and published personal information about her, including her social-security number. Liberi says that’s defamation because the Lisa Liberi felon is somebody else with the same name. But nothing is ever simple in a blood feud between conspiracy theorists.

Couldn’t we clear this up with a birth certificate, a passport, a drivers license and a social-security registration form?

Read more:

What the judge said

The name “Tony Dolz” rang a bell, but not loudly enough for me to remember where I’d heard the name before. A little research was required in the Obama Conspiracy Theories archives. I think the first time I noticed the name was in a list of contributors to Orly Taitz. Dolz is back in the news, this time as a witness for Taitz.

I wrote previously about the question of whether Orly Taitz lied to a judge in the Liberi v. Taitz case, a defamation lawsuit involving multiple personalities in the birther movement. I took Orly’s side, perhaps mistakenly, but we’ll let the judge sort that out. The issue was the nature of sanctions in the amount of $4,000 assessed Taitz in the Taitz v. Obama case, and how Taitz represented them to the judge.

To my knowledge, no recording was made of the hearing before Judge Marginis on November 1 where the sanctions were imposed. Raicha, posting at The Fogbow, described it this way:

Then [Judge Marginis] tells Taitz that he is awarding sanctions not as a punishment but for cost shifting, to shift Oxy’s costs to her. Orders $4,000 to be paid personally by Taitz to Oxy, to Mr. Ritt’s client trust account. Mr. Ritt to give notice of the ruling.

According to a new affidavit, Tony Dolz was there too, and his version is:

I heard Judge Charles Marginis rule that Occidental College was to be awarded $4000 in order to shift the cost for attorney’s fees and travel expenses from the defendant to the plaintiff.

The two accounts are wholly consistent, and the same thing coming from “both sides of the fence” gives me a high level of confidence that this is what was said.

The affidavit was submitted as an exhibit in Orly Taitz’ response to an order to show cause (embedded at the end of this article) why the court shouldn’t string her up (figurative language) for lying.

First Taitz points out that the Court’s reporting order referred to “pending ethical, disciplinary or related matters regarding Orly Taitz” and she states (correctly, I think) that there were no pending matters related to her on October 22, 2012, when the order was issued.

We do not have a transcript of what Taitz told the Judge in the Liberi case on January 14, 2013 beyond the Court’s remark that it related to discovery. What Taitz says in her second point is that the said that the $4,000 award was for “discovery, that it was indeed a cost shifting of attorneys fees related to discovery.” The court noted that a “flurry” of filings were made on this question, but nothing of particular use.

Taitz counter charges that Plaintiffs falsified information provided to the Court by deleting 2 relevant pages from the papers filed by Occidental College in the Taitz case.

By the way, Taitz gives a shout out to RC and his fine radio show in her response, along with many other reasons for not getting involved in lawsuits if you can avoid it.

CDCA ECF 593 – Liberi v Taitz – TAITZ Response to OSC by Jack Ryan

Taitz tells the truth: gets blasted anyway

I’ve mostly stayed away from the birther on birther Liberi v. Taitz libel suit, a hugely nasty action that has dragged on for years. Judge Andrew J. Guilford has pretty much had it with the litigants in the case, on both sides, saying [Order, October 22, 2012, Docket 574]:

This case has wasted huge amounts of time, but very little time has been focused on the substance of the actual dispute at issue. Instead, both sides have expended incredible amounts time calling each other names and fighting over peripheral issues.

Phil Berg, on the side opposing Taitz, was recommended by a disciplinary board to be suspended from the practice of law for a year (status apparently still pending), and he’s made his own ethical claims against Taitz. The judge ordered:

Concerning the pending ethical matters, the parties are ORDERED to inform the Court immediately of any actions taken on pending ethical, disciplinary, or related matters concerning any of the parties now appearing in the case.

That was in October. On November 1, Orly Taitz was dinged $4,000 by Judge Marginis in Orange County Superior Court in Taitz v. Obama for improperly dragging non-party Occidental College into court over a subpoena. I intentionally used the non-technical term “dinged” and more about that later.

Another hearing occurred in the Liberi case and the issue of Taitz’ not disclosing disclose the Orange County order was raised. Here’s the Court’s version of it:

On January 14, 2013, the Court was alerted to a possible unreported sanction against Orly Taitz. Taitz said in Court that the sanction was for discovery. The parties have since subjected the Court to a flurry of papers, which the Court dismisses as irrelevant except for the sole issue now of whether Taitz lied to the Court when she said the sanction was for discovery. Some evidence has been presented to the Court that the sanction involved far more than discovery.

So now the OCWeekly writes, and the Huffington Post derives a story that says: “Orly Taitz faces possible sanctions from federal judge.” The problem with those two articles, is that they leave a big gaping hole where reporting should have discussed the merits of the claim that Taitz lied, a claim which I think has no merit.

First, the order to inform the Court dealt with “pending” disciplinary actions. The activity that led to Taitz’ sanctions was not “pending” on October 22, 2012. It was a week later. If that interpretation is correct, Taitz wasn’t required to report anything about this case.

The Fogbow “Boots on the Ground” ™ report on the Taitz v. Obama hearing had this from eyewitness Raicha:

Then [Judge Marginis] tells Taitz that he is awarding sanctions not as a punishment but for cost shifting, to shift Oxy’s costs to her. Orders $4,000 to be paid personally by Taitz to Oxy, to Mr. Ritt’s client trust account. Mr. Ritt to give notice of the ruling.

Judge Marginis’ order uses the word “sanction” and required Taitz to pay the $4,000 under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1987.2, which says in part:

…the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.

While Judge Marginis catalogs many reasons why the motion to compel was improper, the phrase “bad faith” was never used, nor were there any allusions to ethical violations. In fact, the statute doesn’t even use the word “sanction.” The Orange County Court described what Taitz did as an “’ex parte’ motion to compel production of records,” which “sounds” like discovery to me, and while Orly Taitz is technically a lawyer, she has demonstrated time and time again that she doesn’t know how discovery works, even less than your average Obot, so it probably sounded like discovery to her also.

The disciplinary action, as far as Taitz is concerned, that Judge Guilford apparently had in mind when he issued his order was something in the 9th Circuit regarding Taitz’s representation that Berg had been suspended from practicing law in Pennsylvania (which upon best information hasn’t happened).

I am not a lawyer, but I really don’t see how Taitz is in the wrong on this particular point, nor that she intentionally lied to the Court in the Liberi case. I think the OCWeekly and the Huffington Post coverage was sloppy and misleading.