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.”
IMHO, Hanen partially, as opposed to impartially, maintained and allowed the TX proceedings when there was no legal basis for it, and after doing so partially and with political intention all but spoon fed Orly the steps needed to actually cobble together something actually resembling a justicable case. The fact that she is a complete idiot with a proven record of not being able let alone inclined to follow even the simplest of directions is amply born out by the mound of Taitz that she has since foisted on the court.
Yeah, I’m sure that Oraly has hundreds of patients (much less hundreds of illegal immigrant patients).
I also believe in the tooth fairy.
I suppose some people might believe that undocumented aliens would freely acknowledge their illegal status to a total stranger.
If Orly knows that she has an undocumented alien in her dental chair, why isn’t she calling ICE?
Well, I’ve only got as far as
Is it Taitz or Taitz?
DR. TAITZ: Taitz.
THE COURT: Taitz?
DR. TAITZ: Yes.
but I’m already loving it.
That was my impression of judge Hanen. He wants this case but knows Orly isn’t the right plaintiff. He likely realizes that there isn’t anything within his powers which can be done about immigration but he would love to have a trial for show and eventually rule that there is no relief which can be granted.
I want to go back and don’t have the funds. I set up a fundraiser but, since it isn’t where I must meet my goals to receive the money, I will take pledges via e-mail.
Has Taitz been specifically targeting her advertising towards illegal alien children? Or tailoring her practice (if she still has one…) toward treating such children (i.e., accepting federal programs, state insurance, doing pro bono work, running 2-for-1 Border Patrol / INS specials)?
The idea that she is treating such children at all, much less in volume, than railing so ridiculously against their presence, is ludicrous.
Unless this is part of a new martyrdom meme. Joan of Dental Arch forced—FORCED!—by the merciless state into degrading acts of humanity. It’s a fate worse than death for a wingnut!
It would be hilarious if her first name were Hugh. 😉
THE COURT: Who are you?
DR. TAITZ: Hugh Taitz.
THE COURT: No, I am the court. Who are you?
DR. TAITZ: Hugh Taitz.
THE COURT: No, me court, you Taitz.
DR: TAITZ: Yes, as I said, Hugh Taitz.
…
Based on nothing but speculation, I imagine that orlytaitz advertises for free in some penny saver and that her “practice” amounts to people who try her out once but don’t ever come back. She might see one hapless patient a month for a cleaning and perhaps x-rays if she can talk them into it. She seems to have way too much free time to have any sort of business and clearly she can’t focus on anything except the Black Usurper. orlytaitz thinks about Obama 24/7, 365 days a year.
I doubt that orlytaitz actually does get referrals from a government dental insurance program but assuming so the families would have to be US citizens or legal residents.
orlytaitz never comes out and says “I have been treating undocumented refugees” because she can’t know unless she comes out and asks. And if she did, the families would lie if they were gaming the system (unlikely because they wouldn’t want to jeopardize their eligibility ) or they would admit it because the were legally fostering a child and had permission to get the child needed dental care.
I love Doc’s post titles.
Doc, is this one based on “Judy In Disguise?”
She doesn’t advertise it on her dental practice website, but she is a participating dentist in the Denti-Cal program.
The question I have is whether any of the undocumented children who entered the country this year are even eligible for Denti-Cal. Undocumented aliens can qualify for Denti-Cal, but they first have to establish residency in California. Merely being in California does not establish residency.
And note that a California Benefits Identification Card does not show a patient’s immigration or citizenship status.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/17195773/Eligibility-Recipient-Identification-Cards-_elig-rec-crd_
I think it came from some vintage over the counter medicine advertisement, touting a special ingredient. Or maybe it was “Lucky Charms” cereal with blue diamonds. The pattern is in my head from any number of things.
I think Orly should be glad this thing will never make it to discovery.
Then there is this at OC Weekly:
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2014/09/orly_taitz_vera_f_dolan.php
“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.”
I wonder whether Taitz understood what a powerful statement this is. Judging by the Amended Complaint she subsequently filed I’m guessing that she didn’t appreciate what the court meant.
Judy In Disguise With Diamonds?
I believe Bonsall Obot is referring to “Judy in the Sky (With Glasses).”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myXmPJCseZk
Huh.
That is one of my all time mondegreen errors. I always think he’s saying ‘well thats it’ instead of ‘with glasses’.
The other one that gets me is in “Just Dropped In (to see what condition my condition was in”. The (my) mondegreen is ‘someone painted echo through in big black letters on a din-din sign’. The correct phrase is ‘someone painted “April Fool” in big black letters on a “DEAD END” sign.
Every time I hear the song, I just cannot hear that phrase correctly, and I listen to it quite often, ’cause I jes’ lurves me The Big Lebowski.
The Big Lebowski – Gutterballs Scene
Well, hell; I always had the “with glasses” part right, anyway.
My mistake. The song is “Judy in Disguise (With Glasses).”
That’s what I get for posting after midnight!
Hah! I was talking about mondregreens and there was a big fat juicy one staring us in the face!
So, the good judge knows what Hu’s on first.
And he’s telling Orly what’s on second.
And we can be pretty sure she doesn’t know about third…
Oh, I missed that. Would’ve been funny if the “Taitz or Taitz” dialogue would’ve continued with “Who are you?” – “Hu.” antics. 😉