The Affidavits of Orly Taitz Are Legally Sufficient, Are Not Conclusory as a Matter of Law, Are Based on Personal Knowledge and Were Properly Executed.
While the original Taitz affidavit is legally sufficient as set forth below, Plaintiff has
obtained an affidavit which satisfies even Defendant Judicial Watch’s specious objection that
it is not made on personal knowledge and belief and is not signed under penalty of perjury. Attached as Exhibit 1 is an affidavit which contains this language and therefore makes
Judicial Watch’s contentions
moot. (Attached as Exhibit 2 is the original affidavit. See Motion to Supplement filed March 27, 2014.) Importantly, there is nothing in the affidavit attached hereto which substantively changes anything in the original affidavit, which was properly attested to as well, since it is sworn to under oath and notarized. Moreover, it is clear
from the affidavit, given the nature of Taitz’s affidavit testi
mony, that she is testifying
from personal knowledge. Thus, Judicial Watch’s objections are red herrings, but now moot
in any event. The two affidavits contain the exact same substantive language.
Either of Taitz’s affidavits
are substantively proper and probative and hardly conclusory.
See Plaintiff’s Supplement to Opposition to Defendant’s Motions for Summary
Judgment filed March 20, 2014 and March 27, 2014. They sets forth with succinct specificity that Constance Ruffley and Judicial Watch made the subject defamatory statements to Taitz,
telling her to publish them to Klayman’s donors. In addition, the affidavit
s confirm that Taitz did publish the defamatory statements on her website, which she authenticates, to readers concerned with the eligibility of the President of the United States to be elected to office. These readers, as Klayman sets forth in his own affidavit at paragraph 16, include donors and others, all of whi
ch bears on Klayman’s integrity,
reputation and livelihood as a lawyer. In short, there is nothing conclusory about these affidavits. They get directly to the point. All of the smoke spewed by Defendant Judicial Watch is just that
smoke. Moreover, Plaintiff
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/27/2014 Page 2 of 6