Here’s the documentation:
- 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).”
- 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….).”
- 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.
It looks like Zermeno isn’t going to testify after all.
http://thefogbow.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=605
http://thefogbow.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=606
H/T to AnitaMaria at The Fogbow.
Rickey, can you give the Non-Fogbowsers a different link (maybe upload it to the cloud). I have no access and I guess all others who are not “members”….
I didn’t realize that you have to be a member to see it. I’ll see what I can do.
Essentially, the government moved to quash Zermeno’s subpoena by invoking, among other things, that Zermeno lives and works more than 100 miles from Brownsville. There also is an affidavit by Zermeno in which he states that Orly never spoke to him and he never agreed to testify. I fact, his affidavit specifically states that he does not want to testify:
“I never waived the application of Rule 45(c)(I), particularly since I have had no discussions or interactions with Dr. Taitz. It is my personal wish not to testify at the hearing that I understand is scheduled for August 27, 2014′
Of course, Zermeno’s affidavit contradicts Orly’s assurance to the Court that the Border Agents all agreed to waive the 100-mile rule.
The government also points out that “The subpoena to Mr. Zermeno seeks testimony from Mr. Zermeno in his official capacity and the production of materials that may be protected or subject to privileges that Mr. Zermeno, in his individual capacity, does not have the authority to waive.”
So Orly lied to the Court? Wouldn’t be the first time. I’m sure Sven will explain how the rules of civil evidence and procedures and the statutes regarding perjury don’t apply in the event of potential evidence that will result in the immediate vacating of the Presidency by an ineligible candidate. What (in the slang of where I come from) a tosser.
Here are local links:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/31-main.pdf
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/31-1.pdf
Thanx
Did Orly just LIE to the judge and the judge took her word for it that these folks had waived their rights re this subpoena……just like that???? I
Is it too much to hope that her legal career won’t survive this faux-pas?
This could be a big deal. Attorneys who represent themselves and file frivolous litigation against the government rarely get in much trouble. No clients are injured and as a general rule, courts are reluctant to chill the expression of grievances against the government, even when the lawsuits are batshit insane.
Flat out lying to a federal judge in an affidavit is another thing entirely. Orly better have a damn good excuse.
(actually, she might have a decent excuse. She probably genuinely thinks she had Zermano’s consent for some weird reason that makes sense only to her….)
I think I got it now. Orly lied to the judge, the judge ordered issuance of the subpoenas and Orly just hoped that the four border patrol guys would not ask any questions or seek legal counsel and just ASSUME that a subpoena meant they had to appear….end of story. She is beyond stupid because she ALWAYS tries this sort of thing and it blows up in her face, as it’s doing here, but she NEVER learns.
The judge is pretty stupid, too. There has to be some mechanism by which judges see some paperwork with folks signing something saying they are waiving this 100 mile rule right……and if she didn’t and just took Orly’s word, she looks like a stupid judge. The guy said he never had ANY contact with Orly……I think we’re going to shortly hear from a pissed off judge. Of course, Orly is going to say she was “in on it” all along….
Frankly, I’m LOVING this……
Be still my heart!!
Nah, the Judge isn’t stupid. Judges accept attorney representations all the time. You assume the attorney is telling the truth in an affidavit unless and until you receive information to the contrary. The whole system would break down if the judge had to doublecheck every single thing about every single paper filed in all of the hundreds of cases on her docket.
But… but… this can’t be! Sven told us… he told us..!
He told us to take off the blinders! He… he seemed so sure!
True, re judges having to doublecheck, etc., but I work at a law firm and we get waivers from parties when there’s a possible conflict with representing them and this waiver is signed by them so that we don’t get ourselves disbarred or get a malpractice lawsuite filed against us. This one guy said he never even talked to Orly…..and so he never waived anything. It would have been easy enough for her to get proof of all four of them waiving this right as she got in contact with them….as she clearly represented to this judge – unless the judge really is IN ON IT and just said that on her own (I don’t believe that, of course). If Orly had talked to them, gotten their waiver, no way she would have let them get away without signing SOMETHING.
I somehow think that re this 100 mile rule, there has to be SOMETHING other than the attorney’s affidavit, because as here, people do lie…but since I don’t know, we’ll ultimately see what happens next in this situation.
I haven’t been following this that closely – where did she get the names of the BP agents?
I am guessing that the got them from news reports. This is Zermeno:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/07/border-patrol-union-claims-scabies-outbreak-threatens-agents-public/
It’s pretty standard for someone who has been subpoenaed to contact the court with objections–there are several grounds. The check against an improper subpoena would seem to be an objection from a recipient.
My question: Did Mr. Zermeno travel to Brownsville for today’s hearing and is Orly on the hook for all his expenses?
What about the other three? Did they come to Texas and testify?
The others didn’t dispute the subpoena.
Apparently there are 2 in Brownsville that Taitz wants to call.
Seems kind of like the Atlanta case, where several subpoenaed individuals (including one President Obama) didn’t even bother to show up nor send a response to quash the subpoena. I don’t believe there’s any legal consequences to ignoring an unenforceable subpoena.
And it’s over for today. No TRO.
Folks, don’t get your hopes up, Mad Ole Oily has flat out lied and deliberately misrepresented stuff to judges on many an occasion. She’ll skate on this just like every other occasion.
The various judges have treated her not as an actual lawyer and officer of the court but as a deranged pro-se litigant and basically just ignore her sh#t as it is quicker and easier to do.
Sef, what happened in the courtroom?
You can follow the whole sorry tale starting on http://thefogbow.com/forum/topic/7116-taitz-v-johnson-sd-texas-taitzs-immigration-folly/page-59 .
The court gave Orly more time to amend her complaint – not that she ever filed one in the first place.
I don’t know what to think. I’m starting to think that JAYhg is correct in his assessment of the judge. This nonsense should have ended today. Orly doesn’t have standing and she certainly didn’t get a waiver that says she can sue the government.
This whole circus is bs.
Well, so much for “the best of my knowledge.” See where that gets you.
I take solace in knowing that despite that, she’ll never actually win either.
Amend it how? Was there some discussion about how amending it would make it better or legal or something?
My guess is that there is some really, really big news pending and the judge has heard the rumors. Why else would he want to keep Orly in his court?
No one cares about the opinion of a scuzzy little expat. If we wanted the opinion of someone who skipped out of the country, we’d go ask LDS.
As a prop to pummel the executive branch.
Thanks for the overly generalized , out of hand, scatter-shot, dismissive putdown.
Because this judge is looking for another opportunity to grandstand. If Orly forces him to dismiss her out of hand, he will miss that opportunity.
Multiverse-annihilating. I can feel it in my water.
Booty call?
The judge is grandstanding and Orly is a willing victim. In the end she will lose and the Judge will be hailed for his scathing opinions about immigrants, opinions which have no legal relevance.
Simple really. Orly has nothing, and the re is nothing pending that makes sense for the judge to prolong his own suffering of having to listen to Orly’s screeches…
But I understand that hope lives eternal with people like you and John, and the continued disappointments just continue to add up and make you more frustrated and more irrational.
Am I close?
Will Orly now add Zermeno to the list of plaintiffs? *lol*
Pretty much like the AL SC case that birthers waited months for to deliver the final blow to the usurperation, ended up another 2-7 loss but Roy Moore’s dissenting opinion (which never stated the scary black guy had no papers) was celebrated like Orly’s legendary “I WON”.
Exactly. Otherwise, the judge has no reason to check details like that (and judges have no time to do it unless a problem flares up like in this case)
Winner winner chicken dinner.
And the reason they do that is because she is suing the government, not regular people. We let people have a very long leash when they are, in essence, “petitioning the government for redress of grievances.”
Bow-Chica-Dear-God-No!
Idle curiosity?
Same reason we keep you around Sven…to be used, abused then refused when we’re through with you. Catch the snide comment by the judge telling Orly she’d be better off filing in California?
But probably not when someone starts having people subpoenaed across hundreds of miles based on lying in an affidavit. As a lawyer.
As mad as Orly is, courts should stop treating her as a pro se. She shouldn’t be able to effectively say “disregard I’m a lawyer, let me do my crazy”.