The empty chairs are circling in Mississippi for what could (in the best possible speculative world) turn out to be a definitive contest between the birthers and the O-bots.
It’s probably wildly optimistic that anything is going to happen, but let me spray some glue on the wall and then throw a few random objects and see what sticks.
The first item for the wall is a filing dated March 27, 2012, from Orly Taitz in her Mississippi ballot challenge, a notice to appear to Mike Zullo, the “chief investigator” of the Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Arizona volunteer “cold case posse.”According to Taitz, Mr. Zullo must “appear as a witnessed (sic) at the hearing” which is apparently scheduled for April 16, 2012 at the Hinds County Court House in Jackson, Mississippi. (I regret that I have other commitments on that date.) It’s not clear whether Zullo has any intention of showing up or that the judge would let him testify at this hearing.
The second item is a motion from the Democratic Party side for admission of California attorney Scott J. Tepper pro hac vice. I don’t keep up with who’s who under online screen names, but according Orly Taitz, writing last June, Tepper is the well-respected Fogbow poster Sterngard Friegen. The motion was filed March 30, three days after Taitz noticed Zullo. I have no opinion on whether Tepper is Friegen, but Taitz thinks so, and has responded today with a “Dtaft”(sic) motion posted on her blog [link to Taitz web site] opposing the Democrat’s request that she be examined under oath to answer allegations of barratry, champerty and maintenance and the admission of Tepper. Taitz writes:
Today Taitz received a copy of pro hac vice application of one Scott J. Tepper, who is seeking admission pro hac vice in order to oppose Taitz in the case at hand.
Tepper is an individual who engaged in a four year vendetta and harassment of the Plaintiff Orly Taitz. Tepper, who posts under the name Sterngart (sic) Friegen, and his cohorts created an attack site called “Fogbow” . Tepper (Sterngard Friegen ) spent hours defaming Taitz on the pages of the website “Fogbow”. Supporters of Taitz found over 2,000 defmatory(sic) statements about Taitz made by Tepper/Sterngard Friegen.
Additionally, as a part time investigator for the California bar Tepper attempted to interfere with Taitz practice of law and engaged in de facto and possibly de jure prosecutorial misconduct as he sent multiple e-mails with complaints and an official complaint to the bar against Taitz. At the end California bar decided not to act on any of the complaints by Tepper, however Tepper’s actions cost Taitz an enormous loss of time, financial and emotional resources.
Additionally Tepper repeatedly engaged in the most inappropriate sexual comments about Taitz. After Taitz appeared as an attorney before the 9th circuit court of appeals and Tepper was in the audience, he appeared on RCR radio program and made totally inappropriate remarks about Taitz, claiming that when she had to run to the bathroom before entering the courtroom, she engaged in sexual contact there.
Tepper’s obsession with harassment of Taitz led to a whole “Fogbow” convention in Phoenix, Arizona, which was subsidized by an unknown donor, where Tepper and his cohorts worked out plans of sabotaging work by Taitz and others to bring Obama to justice. One of Tepper’s co-horts (sic) attorney for [name redacted] threatened Taitz that “men in black1 will come after her and this will not be a pleasant visit”. Tepper, [name redacted] and a few other big supporters of Obama used their positions with state and federal government to attack and defame Taitz, derail and sabotage her work and shield Obama from prosecution for elections fraud and use of forged documents.
Tepper is a big supporter of Obama, who gave large donations to Obama campaign.
Allowing Tepper as a co-counsel in this case will not contribute to the case in any way, as Tepper [CAUTION LOWER GAIN ON ALL IRONY METERS] has no knowledge of Mississippi law2, he does not have any identification documents for Obama, he is not an expert in any field. Allowing Tepper to become a co-counsel for the Democratic party (sic) will only taint the decision in this case, as an individual, with a known history of harassment of the Plaintiff would be given free reign to harass her as an opposing counsel. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the defense wants to question Taitz on the stand during April 16, 2012 hearing.
Lastly, due to Tepper’s personal involvement in the cover up of Obama’s forged records by virtue of his harassment of Taitz and others, he is on the list of potential defendants in the RICO action. As such there is a direct conflict between Tepper and his prospective client, Democratic Party of Mississippi. As such, he cannot serve as the attorney for the Democratic party of Mississippi, even if he was licensed in the state of Mississippi.
My understanding is that the only people allowed to oppose Orly, according to her, are people who are nice to her; otherwise, it’s unfair, and certainly an Obama supporter should not be allowed to represent Obama. Taitz also moved previously to prevent the Attorney General of Mississippi from representing the Secretary of State.
While Taitz has her computer warmed up (but apparently not the spelling and grammar checker), she also wants a subpoena for some documents that the Democratic Party of Mississippi doesn’t likely have. In opposition to the motion that she appear as a witness, Orly shows her grasp of legal theory in this rather complex legal argument:
The motion in itself is a sign of an unprecedented level of corruption, total lack of integrity, human decency and any values by the defendants and their attorney, Mr. Samuel Begley….
Any decent human being would realize that it is the number one priority of national importance to remove from the White House and criminally prosecute an individual usurping the U.S. Presidency….
So, the whole motion is simply frivolous and should be denied and defendants and their attorney should be severely sanctioned for bringing such a ridiculous motion, which is nothing but an insult to one’s intelligence.
This contrasts to Taitz who says that she:
… is acting as a decent human being (a concept which is obviously foreign to the Defendant and Mr. Begley).
There is no way I can condense all the crazy in that motion into an article. You’ll just have to read it for yourselves.
1It is denied that anyone said this.
2And Taitz does?
This could be a lot of fun! Pass the popcorn.
speaking of popcorn why is it so tasty at the theaters?
To quote Spartacus.
I am Scott Tepper.
I hope this gets to a hearing!!
Arpaio and Zullo won’t appear and perjure themselves. I’d take that to the bank.
Orly’s requirements for opposing counsel are a bit more extensive than you’ve indicated if her defaming of nearly every judge and lawyer involved in her cases can be used as a guide. Orly feels that only white, heterosexual, non-Muslim Republicans with no previous experience in anything to do with the elections process, vital records or the media and who have also treated her kindly should be allowed to oppose her. Everyone else is “in the tank” for Obama and part of the conspiracy. If I missed any requirements, please feel free to add them!
thouah all obats would love to have Sheriff Joe or Zullu appear, it most likely won’t happend. Such an appearance could kill their cash cow.
My my courtroom, defendants are normal until proven birther.
It’s more of an e-pig than cow.
Is there really a possibility that this will turn into Taitz on trial? Allegations have been made, now a gun has been hired ….. talk about too good to be true.
… and best of all, the target is too deluded to run. For once it’s a Monday to look forward to!
1 Do not take donations that “rightfully should be going to her.”
2. Does not believe she should be the only one allowed to run for an office.
3. Expects her to submit paperwork on time and correct.
4. Genuflects when Orly walks by.
Tropical oils.
I’ve been reading a lot of the old posts on this website, catching up on the conspiracy theories. Someone sent me an email to “warn” me about President Obama’s SS# fraud and Selective Service Registration fraud. I was curious about what type of evidence they were claiming since all the other so-called evidence has been thoroughly debunked. After trying to read Taitz’ motion, I came close to banging my head on the wall. The spelling errors, lack of proper grammar and her unprofessional manner of speaking is so over the top that I can’t believe there are idiots that follow her. Her website is a comedy of errors along with requests for money in almost every post.
I imagine she thought that she could work her way through every state, hoping that one of these judges would believe all her “expert” evidence. What constitutes an expert? Just saying they are, according to Orly. I can’t believe that after all this time that her wasting the court’s time and money hasn’t been squashed before this.
I was under the impression that in order to practice law in different states, you needed to be licensed in them. How is Taitz acting as an attorney in all these complaints she’s filed? If her own state bar association doesn’t recognize her license, then how is she able to get away with this. They called her on it in one of the videos I saw, forget which state at this point, but the insanity continues.
Thanks for a great site and having the patience to deal with all of the craziness that is Orly Taitz.
It appears, according to Orly’s website, sheriff Joe and his posse have refused her notice to appear. In a related note, some of Orly’s flying monkeys are now starting to doubt Joe’s intentions and even accusing him of being a “secret” Obot on a mission to sabotage Orly’s three years of hard works.
I really hope the MS court finds Orly as a vexatious litigant and slaps huge sanctions on her. A fine of mere $20,000 is not going to help as she seems to have the financial means to pay it and continue the insane court filings.
This hearing could be the straw that broke the camel’s back for the CA bar. They have been silent far too long. I am sure they must receive hundreds of complaints on her including from CA lawyers. Her incompetency puts the competency of all the CA attorneys under a bad spotlight. If someone of Orly’s caliber can pass the CA bar exam, then it is not much of an exam. That is, I am assuming she actually took the exam herself. I am not a lawyer and don’t know the format of the bar exams or how difficult they are. I would think it involves oral and written parts as all competent attorneys have to deal with them in any court.
Yes, the courts have been, IMHO, way too lenient on Mad Orly. Although it is clear that with the actions in HI in Dec and the various EPIC FAIL case events she has had this year, that even new courts are catching wind of her antics and finally showing less tolerance for the clown show.
Out of state attorneys can ask the court for Pro Hac Vice, which is to be granted special dispensation to act as an attorney in that state for that one specific case. As far as I understand, that just about always requires a local in-state attorney to “sponsor” them. Somehow, Orly has found gullible sponsors and courts to accept her under that status in almost all of these situations. She was turned down during the GA ballot appeals process… and there may have been another instance in which she was denied, but otherwise if memory serves, she’s been able to appear just about everywhere she’s tried.
The big question remains why the CA Bar hasn’t ganked her license or otherwise penalized her…
Clearly the way Taitz is making Tepper’s arguments for him before he’s even brought in is the clearest sign yet that she’s in the Obot tank.
😐
I can’t wait 😀
The CA bar have already made it somewhat clear, that they’re not interested in pursuing Orly Taitz, until the point where a) she has paying client(s), b) her actions cause her client(s) to lose their case, and c) her actions cause her client(s) to take a financial hit.
As long as it’s only her (community) property taking a hit, the CA bar couldn’t care less about her antics.
Not doing the profession any favours, are they, taking this line.
I used to be a lawyer, and for us there were rules about ‘not bringing the profession into disrepute’. Is the California Bar already held in such low esteem that Orly is making no difference – is that it????
I am just amazed at how increasingly incompetent she is proving to be as time passes.
In Mississippi Orly Taitz is representing herself. Practicing law is representing someone else. Anybody can be their own attorney.
Beyond that courts have rules for the one-time admission (pro hac vice) of an out of state attorney for a particular case. Orly was so admitted in federal court in Georgia for the Rhodes case, and refused admission in Georgia superior court in Farrar.
They are trained professionals.
She is running around the country filling ballot challenges, yet she has not filed a challenge in California. Hmmm.
Stefan Cook lost his job as a result of the suit.
I wonder if she deducts all this globetrotting as a business expense on her income tax returns.
That’s an earful but there’s a kernel of truth there. And you butter believe it’s amaizing.
It begs the question as to whether there are many more far worse California attorneys causing alleged, extensive financial and legal damages to clients that take investigative priority?
He was fired the day after the lawsuit was filed, so I doubt that had much to do with Orly’s courtroom antics. But that was before my time, so my knowledge of the details in that case is limited to what Wiki has to say about it.
Kate1230, folks have pretty well covered how Taitz manages to represent clients out of state. She also files pro se actions, as in MS, when she can’t find a plaintiff. In this way she avoids the bother of a plaintiff and pro hac vice applications.
And don’t forget Indiana Ballot Commission, where she turned up and started stating her case, only to be shut down by a Commission Member inquiring whether she was admitted to the IN Bar. She quickly changed her tune, claiming to be a witness for the plaintiffs, and turned the case over to her plaintiff. Who then promptly asked her to state the case as a witness.
It was a farce, and the Commission saw right through it. But after things had heated up a bit, and they had to call a timeout to cool off, they gave her 10 minutes to present the case, realising that that would be the fastest way to get rid of her.
Wait … what? on what grounds? Don’t these challenges require filing by a registered voter? Has she established a MS residency, or is MS just extra generous, and allows anyone to interlope?
Oh, sorry, RuhRoh already answered … pro se filing.
Why does everyone assume that the California Bar has recieved hundreds of complaints about Orly? Have any of you contacted the Bar? Why not? Maybe you should. It would only take a couple of minutes.
In all of the posts I have read here (and elsewhere), I have never read a single post by a single person who claims to have contacted the Bar about Orly. But I have read hundreds by people who complain that the Bar has not acted. Just saying.
As an aside, the California Bar Exam is by far the hardest bar exam in the country, and I have no idea how Orly passed it.
First, Orly herself in her most recent filing in Mississippi says that complaints were filed by Tepper. Connie Rhodes (Orly military plaintiff) said that she was going to file a complaint. Judge Land in Georgia ordered that a referral of his sanction be sent to the California bar.
I know of two other specific complaints that were filed. One is detailed http://web.archive.org/web/20120127090341/http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/orly-taitz-complaint-to-the-state-bar-of-california:
I don’t have a quick link to the other one, but it was by a named attorney and posted on his own web site.
So this is why I say “three, maybe four” rather than “hundreds”.
The California Bar says:
It might take only a few minutes to call the California Bar, but they won’t tell you anything. They say:
He was fired because he filed the suit. A competent attorney would have advised him that he had no chance to win the suit and advised him not to file it. We don’t know what advice Taitz gave Cook, but does anyone imagine that she told him it was a lost cause?
Well, to answer those questions one good source would be the motions to dismiss from the defendants.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84552589/MS-2012-03-06-Taitz-v-MS-Dem-Party-and-SOS-Motion-to-Dismiss-and-for-Sanctions
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83432630/MS-2012-02-29-Taitz-SOS-Motion-to-Dismiss
In both motions, from the Democratic Party and the Secretary of State, it is argued that Taitz lacks standing. Since she is not an elector in the State of Mississippi, Taitz has no colorable interest in the primary election, and without an interest, she has no standing.
Well now you have. I personally sent five emails to the CA Bar Assn. with exerpts from their rules of professional conduct, along with exerpts from Orly’s legal filings showing where she had violated them.
They responded that since Orly’s psychotic version of practicing law had not done me actual harm, they couldn’t act on my complaint.
Ok, that’s interesting. Thanks for the info.
(I wouldn’t expect the Bar to disclose info about pending investigations. Doc, when I said “call the Bar” I didn’t mean to find out info about whether there had been complaints by others, – I meant people should contact the Bar and complain themselves… looks like Thomas Brown did just that).
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I sent the California bar a lengthy letter about her, including documentation of the many inflammatory remarks she has made about “corrupt judges.”
They responded that they were aware of her activities but otherwise were non-committal. I suspect that they gave my letter short shrift because I am neither a California resident nor an aggrieved client.
I suspect the latter. The Bar doesn’t care about your residency, but I could see it choosing to conserve its resources to protect actual legal clients.
Proof positive that the CA Bar Exam is NOT the hardest bar exam in the country.
Or maybe only proof positive that all the other state Bar Exams could be passed by a penguin BBC Penguin Intelligence Test.
Well, I am boycotting California attorneys until the do something about her.
Is that not ‘harm’ to the livelihood of those practicing attorneys?
I can’t find anything about bringing the profession into disrepute in the CA RoC either.
Well, as I’ve posted before, I suspect the California bar is waiting until after the November election to deal with Orly. But ithis whole matter got me to thinking and comparing the bar to another profession with which there is mutual jealousy, i.e., medicine.
Can anyone imagine that the relevant medical board would hold off on disciplining a clearly incompetent doctor just because that doctor is involved in a political controversy, planning to wait out an electoin for the controversy to die down — and to leave patients to the tender mercies of that medico in the interim?
Perhaps it would be instructive to point this out. Perhaps filling in the editors of the 10 largest-circulation California newspapers about Orly’s whole sordid history might result in one or more of them holding the bar’s feet to the fire. Don’t assume that just because they are in the news-gathering and disseminating business that they have an adequate working grasp of Orly’s antics.
The difference is that if you leave an incompetent doctor operating on people, people die.
Orly is not hurting any legal clients. She rarely has a client, and when she does, the client is wholly on board with her nonsense.
She really is nothing more than a glorified pro. per. litigant, one who happens to have a law degree.
Dr. Taitz is now reporting that she has a secret witness, for whom she needs to raise funds to bring to Mississippi. My guess is that it’s that election clerk guy.
Dr. Taitz seems to be under the impression that the hearing in Mississippi is a trial. I though it was a hearing to decide the various motions filed.
In any event, Dr. Taitz still labors under the impression that in this country one can show up with a surprise witness about whom no notice has been provided to the other side. That does not even happen on “Law & Order.”
As to the California bar, I share Misha’s view that Dr. Taitz has the principal goal of inciting a lone wolf. The California bar ought to be more on watch. Part of effective bureaucratic governing is to make sure nothing goes wrong on your watch for which you can be blame.
Remember, today John Wilkes Booth would be a birther.
ROTFL… Orly is setting herself up for some nice sanctions in MS. She is so desperate.
C.mon now, fellas … she’ll file all that after she fleeces the funds. She doesn’t want to unduly agitate the defense. That would be crazy. 😉