Main Menu

Tag Archives | Ronald Zermeno

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.

Did Taitz do a “no no”?

Here’s the documentation:

  1. 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).”
  2. 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….).”
  3. 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.