This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Dtaft of the opposition to motion in limine in Taitz v Dem party of MS and Sec of state of MS
Posted on | March 31, 2012 | No Comments Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ 29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 p. 949-683-5411 f 949-766-7603 email@example.com IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT HINDS COUNTY STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Taitz V ) Opposition to motion in limine Democratic Party of Mississippi Secretary of State of Mississippi ) a motion hearing to issue ) subpoenas )Motion in limine by the )Plaintiff _____________________________________________ ) Petition for subpoenas or ) Alternatively petition for ) Hon. R. Kenneth Coleman ) Case #2012-107
)Opposition to pro hac vice for
Scott J Tepper
Opposition to motion in limine by the defendant Democratic Party of Mississippi Motion for subpoena duces tecum for appearance at the hearing and production of documents by party of interest, candidate on the ballot in the state of Mississippi Barack Hussein Obama, attorney General of Mississippi Jim Hood, defendants –members of the Executive committee of the Democratic party of Mississippi, attorney for the Defendants Samuel Begley, Director of the Social Security administration for the Southern District of the State of Mississippi, Director of Selective Service for the state of Mississippi, director of Health of the State of Hawaii Loretta Fuddy. Argument Comes now Plaintiff, Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, hereinafter “Taitz:, and responds to the motion by the Defendant, Democratic Party of Mississippi as follows. Latest motion by the defendant, Democratic Party of the state of Mississippi reads as a sign of desperation. Information requested is impertinent and immaterial for the legal action at hand. In its’ motion in limine Defendant, Democratic Party of Mississippi demands to put the plaintiff on the stand, seeking to get information in regards to her donors and believing that someone is helping the plaintiff or incited her to bringing the action at hand. 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. Plaintiff presented defendants with affidavits and videotaped sworn testimony of a senior deportation officer, licensed detective and other experts and videotaped press conference of the sheriff of Maricopa county, Arizona, showing that Barack Hussein Obama posted on line a computer generated forgery, claiming it to be a true and correct copy of his birth certificate. Additionally, plaintiff provided evidence of Obama using a fraudulently obtained Social Security number. 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 . Apparently, members of the executive committee of the Democratic Party of Mississippi and their attorney, Samuel Begley, do not have a drop of decency, as they believe that there must be somebody behind the Plaintiff, somebody supporting her and telling her to file this action. Apparently the level of corruption of the defendants and their attorney is such that they believe that the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by a criminal with a forged birth
certificate and a stolen Social Security number does not represent a problem, does not represent a crime or a threat to the national security. They believe that one can act only if she gets some financial benefit. First, Taitz is acting as a decent human being (a concept which is obviously foreign to the Defendant and Mr. Begley). Second of all, as a licensed attorney in California she took an oath of office to uphold the rule of law and constitution. She came across evidence of the biggest crime ever committed in this nation and she is doing everything in her powers to end it. The motion in limine is totally frivolous. Even if one were to assume arguendo that there is somebody assisting her with donations, it still does not change the essence of the case, it does not change the material facts of the case. Will placing Taitz on the stand change any facts about Obama? Will getting a name of any donor make Obama an honest person? No. Will getting a name of any donor somehow make Obama’s forged birth certificate valid? No. Will getting a name of any donor somehow make Obama’s stolen Social Security number valid? No. 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. So, why was this motion filed in the first place? The answer is simple. Defendants cannot negate the facts of the case. They did not provide any valid documents for Obama, as those simply do not exist. So, the defendant is simply trying to kill the messenger, as they do not like the message. Defendant’s Allegations of Obama’s legitimacy and allegations of Obama’s valid birth certificate are baseless and fraudulent. Defendants are making an assertion that Barack Obama “provided his birth certificate”. This assertion is without merit. Obama never provided either an original or a certified copy of his birth certificate to any judge or jury or Secretary of State. Taitz provided the defendants with affidavits showing Obama committing fraud and using a computer generated forgery. Defendants are intentionally and maliciously attempting to defraud the court. They are engaged in misprision of felonies and are aiding and abetting felonies, such as elections fraud and forgery. This motion in itself is yet another reason, why the Plaintiff should be given a leave of court to file and amended complaint with additional RICO cause of action against the defendants, including an additional predicate offense of Misprision of felonies under 18USC Chapter 1, §4 . Similar legal challenge was brought to court by a Mississippi judge
In 2008 Honorable Judge James Bell and three other licensed attorneys Thomas Smith, James Hochberg and Philip Boarden brought forward a similar case in the Southern district of Mississippi and in the District of Hawaii Thomas v Hosemann 2:08-cv-00241KS-MID and Thomas v Hosemann 1 : 08MC-00280 DHA Dec 18,2008. This case was brought on behalf of over 30 presidential electors, who were concerned about Obama’s birth certificate being forged. Similarly, the Plaintiffs represented by a retired Mississippi judge and three other attorneys were seeking Declaratory relief and expedited discovery. Thomas v Hosemann Plaintiffs’ attorney, retired judge James Bell served in county, circuit and chancery courts in MS (Exhibit 1 ), was the secretary of the advisory committee to the Supreme court of Mississippi, and he is listed among outstanding lawyers of America and in the Mississippi registry of pre-eminent lawyers. If a retired Mississippi judge and a member of the Mississippi bar with over 30 years of experience, with such outstanding credentials believed that a case like this is warranted, than it is most likely that this case has merit and definitely not frivolous. In 2008 there were suspicions of forgery, an ancillary action was filed in the district of Hawaii, however the health department of Hawaii refused to cooperate and the case was withdrawn due to lack of sufficient evidence. In 2011, when Taitz was about to argue her case before the 9th Circuit, apparently Obama tried to preempt a negative ruling and attempted to affect the court with an impression of legitimacy and posted on line what he claimed to be a copy of his original birth certificate. Taitz received affidavits from multiple experts: retired Senior Deportation officer John Sampson, Detective Susan Daniels, Information Technology Expert Felicito Papa, scanning expert on the issue of Obama’s eligibility John Vogt, attesting to the fact that the Obama’s identification papers are a forgery. Recently sheriff Joe Arpaio confirmed all of the evidence provided by Taitz. So, if this legal action was not frivolous in 2008 with minimal evidence, it is definitely not frivolous now with undeniable proof of Obama committing fraud and using forged documents. Similar motion to dismiss was denied in the state of Georgia. From 2008 a number of legal actions were brought against Obama, however these actions were dismissed as judges were reluctant to undo the results of a national election and were concerned of a backlash and repeat of Bush v Gore. Currently the situation is different, as Obama is being sued not as a President, but as a candidate. There was only one such action heard. This action was filed in the state of Georgia Farrar et al v Obama et al. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI. Similarly, defense was seeking to dismiss such action and the motion to dismiss was denied. (Exhibit 2 Denial of motion to dismiss). Taitz represented the Paintiffs in that action. Moreover, Taitz issued several subpoenas, among them a subpoena for Obama to appear and provide his identification papers. Obama filed an opposition and yet again the presiding judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs represented by Taitz (Exhibit 3
Opposition to motion to quash subpoenas in Farrar v Obama , Exhibit 4 Order denying motion to quash subpoenas) The arrogance of this motion in limine is such that it is hard to find a precedent. One that comes to mind is behavior of the U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell during Watergate. When Mitchell was contacted by one of the two lead Watergate reporters, Carl Bernstein, Mitchell reportedly stated: “ All that crap, you’re putting it in the paper? It’s all been denied. Katie Graham (Washington Post publisher) gonna get her tit caught in a big fat wringer if that’s ever published”. (Mark Grossman “Poltical Corruption in America” Volume 1, Greyhouse publishing). Mitchell, who was complicit in Watergate, attacked and tried to threaten and intimidate Washington Post publisher Katie Graham. Similarly, Defendants and their attorney Samuel Begley, who are complicit in a cover up of elections fraud and forgery, are attacking Taitz. They are stating “Neither Court, the State of Mississippi, The Mississippi , the Mississippi Democraic Party, nor President Obama should be made to suffer this baseless unsupported lawsuit. Clearly the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is an abuse of process –designed to stir up bigotry, hate and conspiracy theories and to advance her celebrity and candidacy for the US Senate.” They continue with a threat: What former Attorney General called “putting her tit in a big fat wringer”, members of the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party of Mississippi and their attorney Samuel Begley are actually doing by threatening Taitz and demanding testimony in regards to the names of her donors, so that they can somehow turn it in future into sanctions or claim of abuse of process or criminal prosecution. People measure others by their own standards. Democratic party leaders measure others by their standards as well. Democratic party is known for Chinagate. In Chinagate national security was de facto sold out to the communist China, when the Democratic party and Bill Clinton got large campaign contribution from companies seeking to sell sensitive military technology to China, and after the election Clinton and Ron Brown thanked the Democratic donors by loosening the restrictions and selling the technology, which led to production of advanced nuclear war heads by the Communist China. Aforementioned warheads were pointed at the U.S. Based on Chinagate standards of “integrity”, the Democratic party mistakenly believes that everyone is for sale. They simply do not grasp that Taitz is doing something that promotes the system of Justice, which was severely compromised during the last administration. As stated previously, having donors to help pay expenses for airfare to other states for court hearings and litigation does not make the case frivolous. Additionally, the Plaintiffs mention Taitz’s campaign for the US Senate. Indeed, according to Rasmussen-Pulse public opinion research Taitz is the leading challenger to Senator Diane Feinstein in California. However, her campaign for the U.S. Senate has nothing to do with the facts of the case. Again, this is an irrelevant issue. What is relevant, is whether Obama has valid identification papers or not, whether defendants are being criminally complicit in defrauding the state of Mississippi and the nation. Obama
never provided any valid identification papers. Taitz presented irrefutable evidence, showing Obama to be a criminal using forged identification papers. This is the only material issue. Bringing a legal action to remove from the ballot an individual with forged IDs does not make Taitz a bigot either. It does not stir hate and bigotry, it brings forward a legitimate concern. Using a forged birth certificate should remove Obama from the ballot and the White House and should send him to prison. Obama’s white half is as criminal as his black half. He might be 50% white and 50% black, but he is a 100% illegitimate for the U.S. Presidency. In the aftermath of Watergate over 30 high ranked officials of Nixon administration were indicted. Attorney General John Mitchell was disbarred and got two to eight years prison term and was sent to a federal prison at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama to serve his term. Similarly defendants need to be prosecuted and held accountable for their complicity in the cover up of the elections fraud and forgery. We cannot expect the Attorney General of Mississippi, Jim Hood, to uphold the law, as he is being complicit himself and his deputies are being used to attempt to dismiss this case and cover up of the forgery and fraud in Obama’s IDs. This makes it more imperative for this court to grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave of court to file an amended complaint with an additional cause of action for civil RICO. It also makes it imperative for the court to issue subpoenas for appearance and production of records in order to negate Defendants’ assertions. This precedent shows that indeed legal action at hand is being based on fact and law, legitimate and not frivolous. Not only Motion in limine should be denied, but based on Farrar v Obama precedent motions to dismiss should be denied as well. Motion in limine by the plaintiff and petition for the court to issue Subpoenas As stated previously, in the prior action, in the state of Georgia, in the administrative court subpoenas to produce identification documents were upheld. It appears in Mississippi a hearing is needed to obtain subpoenas. Mississippi Rules of Court Rule 2.01 1. Motions; Service; Opposition. A hearing on a motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum shall be set at the time the motion is filed and served. The hearing shall be set no earlier than ten (10) days after filing and service of the motion. Except for good cause shown, all motions for subpoenas duces tecum shall be served on: (1) the custodian of the books, papers, documents or other objects which would be subject to the subpoena; (2) all parties; (3) all persons whose books, papers, documents or other objects would be subject to the subpoena; and (4) all persons who may have a claim that privileged material would be subject to the subpoena. Any party to the action or other interested person may file an opposition or response.
2. Supporting Affidavit or Declaration. Motions seeking subpoenas duces tecum under this rule shall be supported by an affidavit or declaration stating facts which establish: (1) the documents or objects sought are evidentiary and relevant; (2) the documents or objects sought are not otherwise reasonably procurable in 12 advance of the trial, hearing or proceeding by exercise of due diligence; (3) the moving party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) the application is made in good faith and is not intended for the purpose of general discovery. In the interest of judicial economy Taitz moves this court to issue following subpoenas or to allow Taitz to issue subpoenas to be submitted for the signature of this court or hear at the April 16 motion hearing a request for issuance of the following subpoenas: 1. Subpoena to be issued to the defendant Democratic Party of Mississippi and their attorney Samuel Begley to produce any and all valid original identification papers or certified copies of the valid identification papers, including long form birth certificate of Barack Obama, based on which they are asserting that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and claiming that the legal action at hand is frivolous. 2. For the Director of the Social Security office in either Jackson or Biloxi MS to produce a SS-5 application for the Connecticut Social Security number 042-684425, which was issued in 1977 to a resident of Connecticut born in 1890, which does not pass e-verify and SSNVS and which Barack Obama is using in his tax returns and Selective Service Certificate 3. For the Director of the Selective Service for the Mississippi state Headquarters to provide the original application and the microfilm under Microfilm rule T 1002 for the application for the Selective service for Barack Obama 4. For candidate for the office for the U.S. President, Barack Obama to appear in court and provide original or valid certified copies with the embossed seal for his long form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, his application for Connecticut social security number 042-68-4425 and his Selective Service Certificate. 5. For Loretta Fuddy, director of Health of Hawaii to appear in court and produce the original and microfilm copy of the long form birth certificate for Barack Obama. Alternatively, Plaintiff is seeking a letter rogatory to the First Circuit court in Hawaii to issue a subpoena for Director of Health of Hawaii Loretta Fuddy to appear in court and produce aforementioned records. Declaration of Orly Taitz I, Orly Taitz, declare that
1. Aforementioned subpoenas are necessary and have evidentiary value and relevant (2) the documents or objects sought are not otherwise reasonably procurable in advance of the trial, hearing or proceeding by exercise of due diligence; (3) the moving party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) the application is made in good faith and is not intended for the purpose of general discovery. /s/ Orly Taitz 03.31.2012 Opposition to pro hac vice for Scott J Tepper 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 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 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 attorney for IRS Mitzi Craig Torri threatened Taitz that “men in black will come after her and this will not be a pleasant visit”. Tepper, Torri 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 has no knowledge of Mississippi law, he does not have any identification documents for Obama, he is not an expert in any field. Allowing Tepper to become a cocounsel for the Democratic party 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. Declaration of Orly Taitz I, Orly Taitz, declare that all of the information in regards to Scott J. Tepper is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. /s/ Orly Taitz Conclusion Motion in limine by the defense should be denied. Motion in limine and petition for court issued subpoenas should be granted. Pro Hac Vice for Scott J. Tepper should be denied. Certificate of service I, Orly Taitz, attest that I served the defendants with the above pleadings via e-mail on 03.31.2012 /s/ Orly Taitz Exhibit Curriculum vitae of the Judge James Bell, lead counsel in Thomas v Hosemann James Bell graduated with honors and distinction from the University of Mississippi in 1975, and received his JD in 1977. He formerly served as a trial judge in the County, Circuit and Chancery Courts of Mississippi, and received a 96.5% approval rating from Hinds County Bar members in the 1986 judicial preference poll. His practice includes
general litigation, business solutions, personal injury and serves as an arbitrator and mediator. Publications include Habeas Corpus: The “Great Writ” in Mississippi State Courts, 58 Mississippi Law Journal 25 (1989); Circuit Judges Bench Book, Mississippi Judicial College, (1991). He has served as the secretary of the Mississippi Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules since 1989. He is listed in Outstanding Lawyers of America and in the Bar Registry of Pre-Eminent Lawyers. In 2004, he was selected to be a “Fellow” of the Mississippi Bar Foundation. In 2010, he was elected by his fellow former judges as the Chair of the Conference of Senior and Special Judges. HONORS: 2004 Designated as a Fellow of the Mississippi Bar Foundation 2004 Listed in Best’s Directory of Lawyers 2003-present Listed in Outstanding Lawyers of America 1998-present Listed in Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers 1991-present AV rating by Martindale-Hubbell James D Bell Bell & Associates PA 318 S State St Jackson, MS 39201-4417 Telephone: (601) 981-9221 Fax: (601) 981-9958 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.