I’ve mostly stayed away from the birther on birther Liberi v. Taitz libel suit, a hugely nasty action that has dragged on for years. Judge Andrew J. Guilford has pretty much had it with the litigants in the case, on both sides, saying [Order, October 22, 2012, Docket 574]:
This case has wasted huge amounts of time, but very little time has been focused on the substance of the actual dispute at issue. Instead, both sides have expended incredible amounts time calling each other names and fighting over peripheral issues.
Phil Berg, on the side opposing Taitz, was recommended by a disciplinary board to be suspended from the practice of law for a year (status apparently still pending), and he’s made his own ethical claims against Taitz. The judge ordered:
Concerning the pending ethical matters, the parties are ORDERED to inform the Court immediately of any actions taken on pending ethical, disciplinary, or related matters concerning any of the parties now appearing in the case.
That was in October. On November 1, Orly Taitz was dinged $4,000 by Judge Marginis in Orange County Superior Court in Taitz v. Obama for improperly dragging non-party Occidental College into court over a subpoena. I intentionally used the non-technical term “dinged” and more about that later.
Another hearing occurred in the Liberi case and the issue of Taitz’ not disclosing disclose the Orange County order was raised. Here’s the Court’s version of it:
On January 14, 2013, the Court was alerted to a possible unreported sanction against Orly Taitz. Taitz said in Court that the sanction was for discovery. The parties have since subjected the Court to a flurry of papers, which the Court dismisses as irrelevant except for the sole issue now of whether Taitz lied to the Court when she said the sanction was for discovery. Some evidence has been presented to the Court that the sanction involved far more than discovery.
So now the OCWeekly writes, and the Huffington Post derives a story that says: “Orly Taitz faces possible sanctions from federal judge.” The problem with those two articles, is that they leave a big gaping hole where reporting should have discussed the merits of the claim that Taitz lied, a claim which I think has no merit.
First, the order to inform the Court dealt with “pending” disciplinary actions. The activity that led to Taitz’ sanctions was not “pending” on October 22, 2012. It was a week later. If that interpretation is correct, Taitz wasn’t required to report anything about this case.
The Fogbow “Boots on the Ground” ™ report on the Taitz v. Obama hearing had this from eyewitness Raicha:
Then [Judge Marginis] tells Taitz that he is awarding sanctions not as a punishment but for cost shifting, to shift Oxy’s costs to her. Orders $4,000 to be paid personally by Taitz to Oxy, to Mr. Ritt’s client trust account. Mr. Ritt to give notice of the ruling.
Judge Marginis’ order uses the word “sanction” and required Taitz to pay the $4,000 under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1987.2, which says in part:
…the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.
While Judge Marginis catalogs many reasons why the motion to compel was improper, the phrase “bad faith” was never used, nor were there any allusions to ethical violations. In fact, the statute doesn’t even use the word “sanction.” The Orange County Court described what Taitz did as an “’ex parte’ motion to compel production of records,” which “sounds” like discovery to me, and while Orly Taitz is technically a lawyer, she has demonstrated time and time again that she doesn’t know how discovery works, even less than your average Obot, so it probably sounded like discovery to her also.
The disciplinary action, as far as Taitz is concerned, that Judge Guilford apparently had in mind when he issued his order was something in the 9th Circuit regarding Taitz’s representation that Berg had been suspended from practicing law in Pennsylvania (which upon best information hasn’t happened).
I am not a lawyer, but I really don’t see how Taitz is in the wrong on this particular point, nor that she intentionally lied to the Court in the Liberi case. I think the OCWeekly and the Huffington Post coverage was sloppy and misleading.
That was a fair and reasonable analysis.
Notably, it is as fair and as reasonable as the rest of Dr. C’s articles.
Phil Berg was suspended from practicing law??? Cite please?
I don’t think we can make a full judgement on the matter yet, Doc. We don’t know what was said in the meeting, though there was someone who was present posting on the TFB.
We’ll just have to see if there was a lie or not, and who was telling it.
If she can calmly and rationally respond to the specific order of the judge, including what he requested within the limits required, she may be able to placate the judge. Her history proves otherwise but she is good with pulling out a surprise here and there.
My personal belief is that it was not a discovery sanction, but it was related to a discovery procedure. However, that does not mean she lied. Her belief is that it was a discovery sanction and as George Costanza said, “if you believe it, it is not a lie”.
She will not get sanctioned for this, or at least she shouldn’t. She will though, if she starts to run her mouth at the judge.
The PA disciplinary site is crashing, so I can’t check the status of the disciplinary proceeding against Berg, so I have revised the article to reflect the status as of last August.
After chiding others for sloppy reporting, I see the finger pointing back at myself. Sorry.
Sorry, Doc, but you are mistaken.
The legal term “discovery” means a process by which a party to an action can request or compel another party to disclose evidence or documents, or give testimony. So it is something that only happens between parties to an action.
Was Occidental a party to Taitz v. Obama? No. Therefore the sanction could not be characterize as “discovery”.
In California, discovery is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sections 2016 et seq. Discovery sanctions are describe in Section 2023, which describes misuse of the discovery process.
Had Orly been trying to force production of documents from a party, she could have potentially been subject to a “discovery sanction” under CCP 2023.030
Instead, Orly tried to issue a subpena to an entity that was not a party to the action, under the provisions of CCP 1997 et seq. The sanction order was issued pursuant to CCP 1987.2, with the court expressly noting that Occidental was not a party and therefore not subject to discovery.
The fact that the Judge cited section 1987.2 is equivalent to a finding that Taitz acted “in bad faith or without substantial justification” — as you have pointed out, that is what the statute says. The Judge doesn’t have to use the words “bad faith” — he gave his reasons, which basically amount to a finding that every thing Taitz did was wrong. In any case, Section 1987 is essentially a consumer protection statute, as it is the provision that requires notice when someone tries to subpena records pertaining to a private individual. So it’s a law to protect individual privacy rights — not a law to regulate the rights and obligations of parties to a civil action.
As noted above, it was not a “discovery procedure” because Occidental College was not a party the procedure. I can understand why non-lawyers do not understand the distinction between abuse of “discovery” and abuse of the subpena power of the court… but Taitz is a lawyer. She may be a stupid and ignorant lawyer, but as a lawyer she should be held to the standard of knowing what the word “discovery” means. You may be correct as to her actual, stupid & befuddled state of mind… but in this setting I don’t think its an excuse.
I think there’s a more significant question (to Taitz’ benefit) — Doc quoted the federal order as follows:
I don’t see how the Taitz v. Obama sanction would fall under the umbrella of “pending ethical, disciplinary, or related matters” as, as far as I know, that action wasn’t “pending” back in October, nor is it “related” to another “pending ethical [or] disciplinary” matter. But I don’t know if the federal court also made a further order that Doc didn’t quote.
The impression I got was that the order was going for “without substantial justification” rather than “in bad faith.”
Also, if I recall this rightly, the order was drafted by Mr. Ritt.
Forgive my ignorance, but a subpoena duces tecum is part of the discovery process even if on a non party witness. Certainly taking the deposition of a non party witness is part of discovery. I stand by my statement. It was not a discovery sanction and yes, there is a subtle distinction, but it was related to a discovery procedure. Orly filed a Motion to Compel on a an unenforceable subpoena that she never served. Orly does not know the difference. Therefore she did not lie, she is wrong, she is a moron, but in this case she did not lie.
The site is back on line.Philip J Berg’s history shows an entry in mid-September, 2012 noting that oral arguments on the petition for discipline were scheduled for early October.Nothing after that.
http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/look-up/pa-attorney-public.php?id=9867&attname=Berg%2C+Philip+J.+&violations=1
Thanks. I have updated the article. I also added a link to Docket entry 574.
Thanks. That suggests that this was the item that Judge Guilford was actually interested in, since to my knowledge Taitz had no disciplinary actions pending when the order was issued.
—
I agree that the procedural violations listed in the order are numerous and pretty bad. It is also possible that Judge Guilford saw the documents filed by Occidental. For example, see http://www.scribd.com/doc/111860756/CA-2012-11-1-TvO-Memorandum-of-Points-and-Authorities-in-Support-of-Opposition . Among all the crazy things set forth in that doc, it alleges that she threatened counsel on the phone with criminal conspiracy/treason if he opposed the motion. Also, I read elsewhere that he submitted in Court a copy of an email she sent him (and published on her website) that improperly said, “Your opposition will constitute Obstruction of Justice, Aiding and Abetting in the elections fraud in forgery and treason in allowing a foreign citizen to usurp the U.S. Presidency with an aid of forged IDs and usurp the civil rights of the U.S. citizens. At any rate your opposition and your attempt of intimidation and your allegiance or lack of allegiance to the United States of America is duly noted. Just make sure not to forget to bring with you Mr. Obama’s application, registration, and financial aid application.” Of course, it is unethical for a lawyer to slander and threaten another lawyer for opposing a motion and otherwise doing his/her job. This is most definitely not your garden variety discovery issue, and she was lucky Occidental didn’t request sanctions in an amount above its reasonably incurred fees.
I disagree with this entirely. Go ahead and try to take deposition of a non party witness after the discovery deadline passes and see what happens. Doc, I know that is not your quote, but I took it from your post.
—
I agree, Yoda. The term “discovery” is used for all pretrial interrogatories, depositions, requests for production of documents, etc. As others have noted, however, the rules for discovery on parties are distinct from the rules for discovery on non-parties (e.g., subpoenas).
—-
Good point. Hmmm. I wonder what other pending “discovery” sanction against her might have “involved far more than discovery.”
Berg insists that he has not been suspended by Pennsylvania, and that must be correct because Judge Guilford made it clear that he was going to revoke Berg’s pro hac vice status if his Pennsylvania license had in fact been suspended. Berg is still on the case, at least as of today.
“The activity that led to Taitz’ sanctions was not “pending” on October 22, 2012. It was a week later. If that interpretation is correct, Taitz wasn’t required to report anything about this case.”
—-
Doc, I think I figured out what probably happened. On 10/22/12, the Court ordered the parties to prepare/submit reports on pending ethical matters, and said it would likely take action sometime after receiving them. On 1/14/13 (maybe the Court had ordered them to appear),”the Court was alerted to a possible unreported sanction against Taitz,” and asked her about it. Taitz explained that she didn’t report it because it was just a discovery sanction (no ethical issues). Then, between 1/14/13 and 1/23/13, there was “a flurry of papers” including something that made the Judge think Taitz had lied on 1/14/13. Frankly, I think the Judge saw the itemized Order for sanctions, and saw the Occidental filings (including her unethical threatening slanderous email to counsel, which was also posted on line).
Am I missing something here? With all due respect, I think all of you are making this more complicated than it is. The judge in this case ordered the parties to immediately report any actions taken on pending ethical, disciplinary or related matters. This really sounds like it is directed at Berg but it appears that the Occidental motion for sanctions was pending at this time also.
Did Ms. Taitz immediately inform this judge of the action upon that motion? No, it appears that he heard about it from third parties. Were pending motions relating to discovery excluded from the matters to be reported? No.
I suppose one could argue that she lied by omission but it seems to me that the judge is proposing to sanction her for failing to obey his order to report any actions.
According to the court order, Taitz filed an “ex parte motion to compel production” against Occidental, but Occidental was not a party to the action– so that motion was improper.
The court chose NOT to sanction Taitz under the discovery statute (CCP 2023), but instead sanctioned her under the consumer records statute (CCP 1987.2). I do think that because Taitz filed a “motion to compel production”, the Judge would have had authority to issue a CCP 2023 discovery sanction had he so chosen (because it was a frivolous motion) but he did not.
Instead he issued the sanction under 1987.2, which is part of Title 3 (“Production of Evidence) and not Title 4 (“California Discovery Act”). It was not “discovery” because Taitz didn’t follow the proper procedure in order to initiate “discovery”.
It was, in actuality, abuse of process and harassment of a non-party entity, in an effort to force that non-party entity to produce private, confidential records. For which she was properly sanctioned. But not under the “Discovery” statute.
No. Taitz filed an “ex parte” motion to compel on October 29th. On October 30th, Occidental’s general counsel received a copy of some version of Taitz’ motion. On October 31, the lawyer called Taitz and informed her that he would be appearing in court on November 1 to oppose her motion and request sanctions on numerous grounds, including the fact that no subpena had been served on Occidental. but did not serve Occidental with a copy of the motion. Later that afternoon, Taitz sent the lawyer an email with an attached copy of a subpena. The hearing on the “motion to compel” took place the following day, on November 1. Because of the short notice, Occidental did not submit any papers until the day of the hearing. Therefore, there was no “pending” motion for sanctions until November 1 when the attorney appeared in court.
I’d add that Mr. Ritt, the lawyer who prepared the opposition and appeared in court, was only retained by Occidental at 7pm on the evening of October 31.
Here’s the Memorandum in Support of Opposition
The Taitz v. Obama lawsuit itself had been filed in July, but Taitz had not served any defendants as of October 25th, when she went to court to try to enter a default (which of course was denied, due to lack of service). I have no clue as to whether she served any named defendant in the case with a copy of her ex parte motion to compel against Occidental.
With respect to the “discovery” issue, Taitz did not issue a deposition subpena, but rather her emailed subpena directed Occidental to appear as a witness an produce records for the court hearing of Nov. 1.
The subpena is attached as an exhibit to the end the Declaration of Occidental’s lawyer.
On October 22, 2012, the Court ordered the parties to “inform the Court immediately of
any actions taken on pending ethical, disciplinary, or related matters.” (October 22, 2012
Order, Dkt. No. 574, at 2-3.
As the Court states in his recent Order, the only issue before the court is whether Orly lied when she stated the sanction was a discovery matter and therefore not reportable. First off, I see nothing in the judge’s Order of October 14 which limits the reporting to only matters which are reportable to the bar. I believe the ethical matter of self-reporting ot the bar and the judge’s Order of the 14th are two completely separate matters. The judge requests the reporting of any pending, disciplinary or related matters, which covers a broad spectrum of “actions taken”.
The term pending in the judge’s Order is indeed ambiguous, but I think it is clear by the actions the attorneys took pursuant to that Order indicate it was clearly understood that it did not mean “pending at the time of the order” but rather at any time, past, present or future, as that is how the parties responded to the order (although neither was completely forthcoming in their response). Sanctions can be other than monetary, and both Berg and Orly have received many nonmonetary sanctions. An example of this type of sanction would be when John Hemenway was admonished by Judge Robertson in Hollister v Soetoro for his conduct in the case. That is a sanction, though nonmonetary.
I think it is also evident by the court’s action here, issuing an OSC to Orly that he too believes pending means at any time. Otherwise a sanction issued to either Berg or Orly at this time would be irrelevant to his October 14th Order.
As to the instant matter of whether Orly lied to the Court by stating her 4k sanction was a discovery matter, that too, in my opinion, is subject to interpretation. Since there is no transcript of the proceeding which led to the sanction, the answer is in the papers requesting the sanction and the notice of ruling and the judge’s Order.
I don’t think Orly will respond in a proper manner to avoid her sanctions, but she may skate regardless, based on the judge’s interpretation of the Order for sanctions and related papers.
Those may all be viewed here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111860772/CA-2012-11-1-TvO-Opposition-Declaration-of-D-Jay-Ritt2
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111860756/CA-2012-11-1-TvO-Memorandum-of-Points-and-Authorities-in-Support-of-Opposition
http://www.scribd.com/doc/112323226/CA-2012-11-01-TvO-ORDER-Denying-Discovery-and-Granting-Sanctions
http://www.scribd.com/doc/122025407/CA-Taitz-v-Obama-2012-11-01-Notice-of-Ruling
It’s Karma.
To which I would add that we don’t have a transcript of what Orly told judge Guilford either.
There were no pending motions related to the Sanction on October 22. The whole thing blew up a week later.
When looking at this story I was reminded that a lot of mud was being slung in this case, for example Orly Taitz said that Berg had been suspended, when he had in fact not been suspended (although such a recommendation was made by the disciplinary board). I have no reason to have any confidence that what Judge Guilford was told was necessarily true.
I think everybody would agree that there were some ethical violations in what Taitz did trying to compel Occidental College to produce records, but I don’t see that an authority sanctioned her for ethical violations.
What I take away from this discussion is that there is reasonable doubt that Taitz lied to the court.
I do not take issue with your opinion that she was not hit with a discovery sanction. I agree. I take issue with your opinion that discovery is necessarily limited to requests between parties. Certainly discovery does include subpoenaing documents and testimony from non party witnesses. Where I am from, motions to enforce subpoenas are routinely heard in discovery court.
From my perspective, her Motion to Compel Enforcement of a subpoena was a discovery procedure, so although she did not receive a discovery sanction per se AND we do not know exactly what she said to the judge, I believe that there is a strong possibility that she, while wrong, did not lie to the Judge. We know that know that when it comes procedure Orly has shown both a truly astounding amount of ignorance coupled with an apparent inability to learn from her mistakes. We also know that she has been less than candid with the Court on several occasions. What did she do in this case? We don’t know for sure, but I am willing to bet that she will not be sanctioned for this unless she makes truly stupid comments to the Judge during the hearing. Knowing Orly, that is a very strong possibility.
The screed producers on this blog would probably not be able to understand the difference between “UNalienable and INalienable” rights.
Here’s the link…that explains the meaning of those legal terms. AND! for the most part the screed producers on this blog wouldn’t or couldn’t figure out how each term applies to what areas of America’s legal system.
http://www.diigo.com/annotated/234babb70015f24b074b56ffe2070af2
The Preamble to America’s Constitution states “UNALIENABLE” rights given to Americans by the ‘creator… read and heed what the document states. See the “Declaration of Independence to know the source of “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS”
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/DeclarInd.html
AND! there’s no doubt that an “expressed right” (black letter law) stating that a POTUS shall be a “Natural Born Citizen” invokes the IMPLIED constitutional RIGHT to know who that POTUS is and how that person meets the EXPRESSED RIGHTS constitutional requirement of being a NBC citizen of American to be POTUS.
—-
I’ll also note that, as a general matter, the word “lying” is remarkably strong language for a Court (rather than, e.g., “understating” or “mischaracterizing”). The Court seems more than fed up with all the time-wasting nonsense and the inability to get a straight/forthright answer from her on anything … I sure hope Taitz knows better than to respond by calling the Judge a liar, but I wouldn’t bet on it…
I think he wrote a book about himself. You should read it. Then you might know who he is. 😀
You have not actually read the Preamble to the Constitution, have you?
Does it? Please show me . By the way here is what the Preamble to the Constitution states: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’
UNALIENABLE: The Preamble to America’s Constitution states “UNALIENABLE” rights….
How typical. You show up here claiming WE need to be educated about our founding documents, insulting us, and then prove to the world that you haven’t taken the time to learn even the simplest facts about them.
What does that tell me? That we here have far more affection and respect for this great nation than you do.
Actually, I am not sure there is any implied right that all citizen’s should “know” if he is eligible. There is no right that all voting eligible citizen’s can vote for President. The Constitution leaves the election to the Electoral College and the process for determining the elector’s to the states. If the Birthers were consistent in believing they have a right to “know” who they are voting for, they should be demanding the names and background of the electors.
Birthers claim to have a strict interpretation of the “original” Constitution and intent, but demonstrate at every turn they have absolutely know idea of what it even says. This is made worse due to their constant conflating of a declaration stating who we are, what we are doing, and why; with a document that sets up a governmental system.
Northland10 January 26, 2013 at 12:31 pm (Quote) #
[Personal attack deleted. Doc.]
The declaration’s meaning when it is not corrupted by the likes of a J.D. means what it says; UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
>>>>>>>>>>endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,”<<<<
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/
Where did you copy and paste this nonsense from? I notice you talk about the constitution then talk about the declaration those are two different documents.
This version is easier for some people to understand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHp7sMqPL0g
(School House Rock -The Preamble)
I have trouble reading the Preamble without that going through my head. In my high school civics class, as part of a group assignment, one group rewrote it as a rap. Being 25 years ago, I do not remember how it went but it was quite amusing.
UNALIENABLE is probably just another hit-and-run birther we will never hear from again, particularly after he put his ignorance on display for all to see.
I can’t imagine any of the FFs tolerating rap except maybe Ben Franklin.
Well, shame alone will never stop a birther bigot. Obviously.
Preamble and Declaration of Independence can be located all over the web, take your pick of websites or use Cornell, Michigan law or whatever.
This is not complicated at all, the statement is not hard to understand. AND! yes there is a term that defines American Rights in the Federal System… now all that has to occur is for the ignorant posters to learn why there is an INalienable right available to the American citizens. Obfuscation is all that the posters on this blog can do when it comes to the reality of the loser in the WH.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
>>> unalienable Rights, <<<<<
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Where does it say that you have a right to a President you like?
Well some versions do say you have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of harpiness”, which is why we haven’t seen a lot of disciplinary action against Orly.
Keep grabbin’ those straws 😀
You’re babbling again. Stop embarrassing yourself.
And in various books on my bookshelf. What’s your point? You are trying to make about point about the Constitution by quoting the Declaration of Independence. Please try to explain the point, within the text of the Constitution using specific examples. Let’s try to keep your response to only 2 sock puppets.
Just goes to show you..
You can only tell so many lies before the truth comes and bites you.
it’s entertaining to discover what new hill the desperate choose to die on.
today it’s the word “unalienable” and the one person on the planet who knows what it really means is finally here to teach it to us.
morituro saluto!
Yoda, Taitz did not bring a “Motion to Compel Enforcement of a subpoena”.
She brought a “Motion to Compel Production of Documents” under CCP
That’s a different animal. Not only that, she did it on an ex parte basis.
Taitz did not prepare or serve any subpena until after initiating the motion to compel. Occidental’s General Counsel contacted her at around 1:30pm on October 31 and asked her to drop the motion, saying they would seek sanctions if she proceeded, and pointing out that there had never been a subpena. Two hours later, she sent a subpena by email. About 3 hours after that, Occidental retained outside counsel to go to court.
Further, the subpena that Taitz emailed at roughly 3:30pm on October 31 was not a deposition subpena. It was a subpena to appear and testify as a witness in court. “Discovery” is something that happens out of court, among the parties. (Even if the discovery is a deposition of an outside witness, it generally take place in a private conference room, and the transcript is ordinarily not a part of the court record).
If Taitz had done what you suggest — (1) serve a deposition subpena requiring production of specific documents at a specified time and place, and (2) subsequently brought a motion to enforce her subpena after Occidental refused to comply — then it might have been characterized as “discovery” — but that is not what happened.
Just to clarify things — Taitz is required by California law to report that sanction to the State Bar. (Whether she knows that and did so is another matter). The only exception would be if she had been sanctioned for “failure to make discovery” — but that’s not the case here.
“Failure to make discovery” would apply only in a circumstance where an attorney had failed or refused to give the attorney for an opposing party what they wanted from her and her client. That exception (specified in Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6068(o)(3)) is probably there so as not to deter or punish attorney acting vigorously to protect their own clients. The law isn’t that any discovery sanction is immune from reporting — its only in a certain context that the reporting requirement is waived.
Do you have a point about “inalienable” v “unalienable”? Just asking because the two spellings are just alternative spellings for the same word.
The fact that she screwed up the procedure doesn’t change the nature of what she tried to do. I stand by my analysis. It was a discovery procedure. And I am aware of what Orly called it, but what she was trying to do was enforce a subpoena that she never served.
Once again you’re confusing two different documents. The declaration of independence talks about unalienable rights. The constitution does not mention the words. The constitution is what we base our laws on.
NUTCASE is the prototypical Birfoon: kinda stoopid and filled up with misinformation, but lecturing and brow-beating people who are smarter and better-informed with verifiable facts.
Know what descriptive metaphoric moniker that behavior earns you, NUTCASE?
Just take the beginning of assiduous and graft it to the tail end of piehole.
No, what she was doing was attempting to abuse the “discovery” process and abuse the power of the court to harass a third party and obtain private, confidential documents to which she was never entitled.
If a store has a sign announcing that everything is on sale, and a person enters the store with the intent to shoplift, and thereafter takes multiple items without paying for them … the person cannot later justify their actions by pointing to the “sale” sign.
Taitz did not follow the process that would be required for discovery. “Discovery” in California is definitely not an anything-goes free for all; you have to follow the rules.
This isn’t a situation where there was a minor mistake or defect in a notice – this is a case of someone totally disregarding the rules, and not even making the slightest effort to comply.
It is not “discovery” because she didn’t avail herself of any of the available procedures for discovery.
—-
I think this is key. If Taitz told the Court on 1/14/2013 that it was a nonreportable discovery sanction, this plainly raises the issue “of whether Taitz lied to the Court.”
I don’t practice in CA, so I don’t know how quickly things move there, but I think it is also key that Taitz may have received notice that the sanctions were reported by the State Court Judge, and that there was a pending State Bar investigation, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6086.7:
(a) A court shall notify the State Bar of any of the following:
….
(3) The imposition of any judicial sanctions against an attorney,
except sanctions for failure to make discovery or monetary sanctions
of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
….
(b) In the event of a notification made under subdivision (a) the
court shall also notify the attorney involved that the matter has
been referred to the State Bar.
(c) The State Bar shall investigate any matter reported under this
section as to the appropriateness of initiating disciplinary action
against the attorney.
You circle around the point, but miss it every time. No make the mistake of looking at how she did what she did instead of what she tried to do. There is no getting around the fact that she was attempting to do discovery, no matter how badly. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT WAS NOT A DISCOVERY SANCTION. But you cannot seriously debate whether she was attempting to do discovery and whether the sanction was related to a discovery process.
First you say that discovery only involves procedures between the parties. That was incorrect. And now you double down on the idea that it was not a discovery procedure when it absolutely was. This is all in the context of whether Orly lied to the Court, which in my opinion was probably not if she called it a discovery sanction. Yes, she is wrong, yes she is deluded, yes she is incompetent, but because the sanction related to a discovery process she probably honestly believed that it was a discovery sanction.
No, you obviously misunderstood what I said. The type of motion that Taitz purported to bring can only be between the parties, which is something the Court specifically noted in its ruling. Here’s what the court said:
Of course that wasn’t the only thing that was wrong with it, but the point is that the type of discovery she sought can only be brought against a party to the action.
Lawyers can bring in third parties during the discovery process, but they have to follow a different procedure, which involves service of a deposition notice & subpoena. Taitz didn’t do that.
Taitz did issue a subpoena the day previous to her motion hearing, but that was not a deposition subpoena, but rather a subpoena directing a witness to appear in court. An evidentiary hearing is not “discovery” – it is essentially a mini-trial.
Judges can also issue discovery sanctions, but in this case the judge didn’t do that. Rather, the judge granted Occidental’s motion to quash the subpoena which had directed production of documents at the court hearing, and also granted Occidental’s request for sanctions, in the specific amount that Occidental asked. The statute he cited is not part of the California Discovery Act. He issued the sanction under section 1987.2. A discovery sanction would be issued under a different law, section 2023.
How? under what circumstances could she have properly brought an ex parte “Motion to Produce Documents” against a non-party to an action?
You seem to be suggesting that a lawyer involved in litigation can just make up the rules as she goes along and then call everything she does “discovery”. Yes, Taitz does that, but that doesn’t mean that others should buy into her frame.
It did not relate to a lawful or permissible “discovery process”. It related to a “process” she made up and is no where authorized under California law.
If a man uses his hunting rifle to shoot his wife in their bedroom, that doesn’t make it a “hunting accident.” The fact that Taitz abuses the discovery process by insisting on doing things that she is not authorized legally to do does not make it a “discovery proceeding”.
I understand that you and Doc C. are saying that Taitz may subjectively believe that what she is doing is “discovery” — but I’m with whatever judge wrote that wishing something does not make it so. If a crazy person with a hunting license and a hunting rifle goes around shooting people at random, it doesn’t make much sense to accept to a “hunting accident” excuse again and again.
Whether she’s stupid or crazy or both, Taitz keeps filing frivolous lawsuits all over the country with the express purpose of using those suits to get “discovery” to which she is not entitled. We’re beyond the realm of innocent mistake at this point.
I am not going to go look for it, but you made a post that said that discovery is limited to conduct between the parties. That is incorrect as you now acknowledge. If I misunderstood your previous post, then my apologies.
But I think you are getting hung up on semantics. Perhaps I am more cynical than you are or perhaps more weary. You are focused on what the dentist called the motion. I am focused on the intent of the motion. In my state we have a rule of civil procedure that says when there are minor defects of civil procedure the Court should look past that as long as it does not affect the rights of the parties. The title of a motion fits within that rule.
Again, I agree that Orly did not receive a discovery sanction, but I am having a hard time understanding why you do not believe that it was related to a discovery procedure. I really am. I realize that I am probably not as educated as you are, but it seems to me, as uneducated as I am, that any procedure that seeks to force a person or organization to turn over documents, whether a party or not, is a discovery procedure. Clearly the subpoena was not to produce the documents at trial. Therefore it is discovery.
You want to pretend that because the process she selected cannot be used to get the result she wanted changes the nature of the procedure itself. Courts have repeatedly told her that Courts cannot remove a president, does that mean she did not bring legal actions? By your analysis, it would seem to be your conclusion. Honestly, I am trying to be patient with you, but I am genuinely shocked that you do not see that she was sanctioned as a result of bringing a discovery motion, even if it was not a discovery sanction.
I will take another look at the proceeding and the subpoena itself. If it was to bring a person to a hearing to testify about the documents at an evidentiary hearing then I can agree that it was not discovery, but that is not my recollection of the hearing.
Exactly what did I misunderstand?
I found the subpoena which was for personal attendance at a trial or hearing. Does anyone have a link to the Motion to Compel?
I found the motion. It is silent as to a hearing or trial. It is clearly intended to be a discovery motion. The rule she cited comes from Chapter 6 of the California Rules of Civil Procedure, which is titled, Non Party Discovery.
—–
Now that I’ve looked at the subpoena, I see no possible way to conceive of this as a discovery matter.
On its face, the subpoena she prepared was not intended as a discovery-related subpoena. The sanctions she received were not discovery-related. She was required to report the sanctions to the disciplinary authority. The court was required to report the sanctions to the disciplinary authority and send notice of that report to her. The disciplinary authority is required to investigate for possible disciplinary action. Although the Judge may have said in court that the sanctions were for fees (not punishment), a disciplinary investigation is still pending.
Her citation to section 2031 is irrelevant, except as evidence that she could be incompetent to form the mens rea required–pursuant to the George Costanza Code–for lying to the court. Good luck with that…
While the subpoena was not a discovery subpoena, the motion was filed as a discovery motion. We look at this as rational people who do or have been in the legal profession, that is our problem. We cannot conceive of and really have no comprehension of Orlylaw.
And if anyone qualifies under the George rule, Orly does.
Service of a discovery motion on a non-party is not a “minor defect”.
The type of motion Taitz filed can only be brought against a party. There is a different procedure in California for third party witnesses.
You are right that the title of a motion can be characterized ad a minor defect — that is precisely why Taitz cannot abuse court process and then later say that it was a “discovery” proceeding, base on what she decided to call her motion.
Because she was not using any “discovery procedure” allowed or contemplated under California law.
It’s kind of like all of those birthers who formed “Citizens Grand Juries” and issued “indictments” against Obama. If someone missed work to attend one of those sham sessions and told her boss that she had “jury duty”, she would be lying. Because those aren’t real juries.
Taitz wasn’t engaged in real discovery.
No, not at all. If you issue a subpoena for a witness to produce documents in court for a trial or other court hearing, that is not “discovery.” “Discovery” is something that takes place out of court, generally without becoming part of the court record.
My original post was simplified. I was explaining the procedures in California under section 2031, which provides:
Link: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=02001-03000&file=2031.010-2031.060
At the time I posted, I didn’t go into detail over the procedures for depositions, which would be the appropriate procedure to obtain documents from a non party, because:
a) Taitz never prepared or served a deposition notice
b) Taitz never claimed to have prepared or served a deposition notice
c) AFAIK, Taitz could not have noticed a deposition because she had not yet served any defendant to the action, and CCP 2025 does not allow her to take depositions until 20 days after the service of summons or appearance of a defendant.
So it’s a red herring issue, because it doesn’t apply to this fact setting.
AFAIK, we only have the report of someone who attended the hearing as to that statement, as we don’t seem to have a transcript and that isn’t in the order. I think it possible that the observer may have misunderstood what the court said.
The court has authority to issue many types of “sanctions”. One is to make the sanctioned attorney pay costs to the the other side; another is to levy a fine, that is not related to actual costs. Occidental’s lawyer asked for $4000 and supplied a declaration about the number of hours spent preparing a response & his hourly rate.
Except in situations where cost-shifting is mandatory or automatic, the sanctions order is still a punishment. It is just one that is tied to the lawyers itemization of costs. That distinction would be important in the event of an appeal, in a case where the sanctioned party asserted that the attorney fees claimed were unreasonable. (For example, if Occidental’s lawyer had claimed to have worked 50 hours on the case & been awarded $20,000 in sanctions)
We weren’t there, so we don’t know exactly what was said, but the court order used the word “sanction,” which is always a punishment.
The minor defect I was referring to was the title of the motion filed
Unless it is associated with a hearing or trial, it IS discovery. Here the subpoena was not a discovery subpoena but the MOTION was filed under the discovery rules. Therefore it was a discovery motion.
Dude, you really need to learn to back off when you are wrong.
First you claim that discovery is only between the parties. When you corrected on that you claimed that I misunderstood your post. I found your post and quoted from it and instead of admitting that you made you a mistake, you claim that you simplified something. And you continue to insist that a Motion that was filed under the California Rules of Civil Procedure for NON PARTY DISCOVERY, was not a discovery motion. It was, and therefore it was a disovery procedure, whether you think so or not.
It is ok to be wrong. I was wrong about the nature of the subpoena and admitted it. You are wrong about the Motion. And sorry, but your analogies really need work. You can’t compare a her Motions to the phony citizen grand juries. And I think you are missing the point entirely. Without question, despite your arguments to the contrary, Orly was sanctioned in conjunction with a discovery motion that she filed. It was the wrong the Motion, was improperly timed, sought relief that she could not obtain and was overall ridiculous, but IT WAS A DISCOVERY MOTION.
Perhaps you have misunderstood. I am not saying she was using a legitimate discovery procedure. What I am referring to as a discovery procedure is the Motion itself. Get it yet?
Get over it, we all make mistakes.
Do you have a link to the motion?
There is no such thing as the “California Rules of Civil Procedure” – rather there is a “Code of Civil Procedure.” (CCP) Title 4 of the CCP pertains to discovery; Chapter 6 under title 4 pertains to non-party discovery. That is the part that specifies that the only type of “non party” discovery allowed is via a deposition subpoena…. which is the thing that Taitz didn’t do.
(I don’t know what Taitz cited in her motion, but in general it’s a good idea for lawyer to read whatever it is they cite, especially if they think it’s a “Rule”)
My bad, around here we call them RULES of Civil Procedure
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111730076/CA-Taitz-v-Obama-Motion-to-Compel
NO, the discovery rules do not allow any such motion. And in any case, the issue isn’t what type of “motion” she was trying to event, the issue is the type of sanction imposed.
Had the Judge sanctioned her under CCP section 2023.010, then it would be a different story. But that isn’t what happened.
Now you are beginning to annoy me. It doesn’t matter if she is allowed to file the Motion, it matters that she did. AND IT WAS A DISCOVERY MOTION.
The entire issue here is whether she lied to the Court. If she said that it was related to a discovery motion, then she did not lie. How do you not get this? What law school did you go to?
Around here, we READ the provisions of law cited before drawing conclusions as to the basis of the motion. The part that says, “the
process by which a nonparty is required to provide discovery is a
deposition subpoena.’ would be a good start.
And didn’t you post, “Go ahead and try to take deposition of a non party witness after the discovery deadline passes and see what happens. ”
Why do you think that it would be ok for Taitz to make a “motion” to compel production of documents from a non-party withess before the time at which discovery is allowed to commence? There’s a time when “discovery” starts and a time when it ends.
That was to illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about concerning discovery, particularly when you stated as fact that discovery exists only between the parties?
When did I say that anything she did was ok? I simply stated that she filed a discovery motion pursuant to the California CODE, which was correct.
I did read the provisions. You are focused on the non merits of the discovery motion and I am focused on the fact that it was a discovery motion. I never said she was procedurally correct, in fact, I said several times that she could not do what she was trying to do. It does not change that the fact that it was a discovery motion. Again, I am having a really hard time understanding why you are not getting this.
I find that a really good place to start is the section of the code that a motion is filed under. Then I know what provision to look for. You should try it some time.
But there is NO SUCH motion allowed under California Discovery Procedure.
I am old enough to remember when the California Civil Discovery Act was enacted. At the time it was a BFD. It was a substantial overhaul and reform, and very much intended to cut down on various abuses.
Taitz is an idiot, but the point is that she could not bring a “motion” for discovery against a nonparty. She could have served a deposition subpoena, but that is not what she did.
Exactly what do you not get about the fact that although she has no right to bring the Motion, she did?
She brought a motion, but it was NOT a motion allowed under California Discovery procedures. If she had file a “motion” demanding Obama’s arrest for treason, it wouldn’t be a criminal prosecution.
Read Occidental’s brief:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111860756/CA-2012-11-1-TvO-Memorandum-of-Points-and-Authorities-in-Support-of-Opposition
Taitz filed a lawsuit in July but did not serve any defendant. On October 25 she came to court to try to enter a default against the unserved defendants. The court denied her application, specifically ruling that the defendants had not been served.
So right there we know that Taitz could not possibly even begin discovery until mid-November, assuming she promptly went out and served the defendants (which she did not)
Then she files her ex parte application on October 29th. Even if she could have brought a discovery ‘motion”, she could not have done it by ex parte application — that wasn’t a proper subject for an ex parte application.
You need to work on your analogies. Again, no one says that she did anything procedurally correctly, but you can’t change the fact that she filed a discovery motion, no matter how important it is to you.
In one of her actions she filed a Motion for a Default Judgment AND filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Circuit Court of appeals. She never served the Complaint. She is not entitled to the relief she seeks, does that change the fact that she filed a Motion for a default and a Petition for Writ of Mandamus? NO
Listening to (reading) you guys bickering about Orly’s latest meltdown is almost as much fun as watching the latest Orly meltdown.
Taitz filed a piece of crap.
It was not a “discovery” motion because (a) Taitz was legally precluded from commencing discovery as she had not served the defendants, and (b) the kind of “motion” she filed does not exist under California law.
(If a lawyer properly serves a deposition subpoena on a nonparty, and the witness disobeys the subpoena by simply ignoring it, then the lawyer would need to go to court to get an order to show cause re contempt. A “motion to compel” would not work because the court lacks jurisdiction to issue general orders to non-parties.)
But it doesn’t matter what Taitz though she was doing because Judge Guilfurd apparently asked a different question.
Judge Guilfurd wrote, “Taitz said in Court that the sanction was for discovery”.
You wrote, “I do not take issue with your opinion that she was not hit with a discovery sanction. I agree”
So therefore, the sanction was not “for discovery”. It was for something else. (motion to quash)
It doesn’t matter what the initial motion was for, because that motion was denied.
If Taitz had been truthful, she might have said, “the sanction was to cover attorney fees for an subpoena that the court found to be improper”.
I still don’t know enough about the Liberi v. Taitz case to know whether this sanction is or is not something that needed to be reported, because of the ambiguity of the word “pending.”
But I can see why a Judge would be very ticked off about her false characterization of the sanction as being for “discovery.” I’d expect that the situation is ambiguous enough that she can extricate herself by providing the court with a copy of the sanction order and apologizing; but if she shows up in court and tries to argue along the lines you suggest… well, she’d only be digging herself deeper.
I think you are both right. Maybe a sporting analogy might help?
In 2007-2008 basketball season the University of Memphis won 38 games and went to the Final Four in the NCAA tournament.
In 2009, the NCAA ruled that John Calipari had cheated (or perhaps only encouraged or tolerated cheating) during the recruiting of one of the players on that 2007-08 team.
The sanctions that were applied included ‘vacating’ all 38 wins and its tournament appearance.
The record books say that Memphis had zero wins and did not attend the NCAA tournament. However try telling that to Texas-Arlington, Mississippi State, Michigan State, Texas, and UCLA who all lost to somebody who (retrospectively) wasn’t there, and Kansas who (annoyingly for most thinking college basketball fans – on the other hand who was the lessor of two evils in this case, Self or Calipari? – but I digress) managed to beat them.
OK, so my analogy is backwards. Memphis wins and tournament appearance was ‘vacated’ retrospectively; Orly’s motion ‘that could not be made’ was never the less made.
If I understand you, you agree that she made some kind of motion, you agree that the motion was invalid, you agree on why the motion is invalid, and you agree that Orly was sanctioned for the invalid motion by having to pay Occidental’s costs.
Now, Yoda is saying that she made a motion about discovery where no such motion is allowed, and that is what Orly was sanctioned about – making an invalid discovery motion in order to disguise a backdoor attempt to gain illegal access to private documents from a non-party.
Expelliarmus is saying that it was a motion, but since a discovery motion is not valid under the circumstances, that it could not in fact be a discovery motion, and that is what Orly was sanctioned about – making a motion that pretended to be a discovery motion in order to disguise a backdoor attempt to gain illegal access to private documents from a non-party.
The nexus of the difference is that if Yoda is right, Orly is not lying; if Expelliarmus is right, Orly is lying.
Now if I further understand you guys, the sanctions were not imposed under the rule governing discovery, but another part of the CCP. It would seem that the logic there is similar to WKA being declared a Natural Born Citizen on the basis that he is certainly a citizen (birthright) and could not have been naturalized at any point (Chinese Exclusion), therefor he must be NBC. Since the sanctions were not imposed under the discovery provision in the code it must not be discovery related and Expelliarmus wins.
On the other hand, it is clear to me that Expelliarmus must be a member of the California Bar and I have vowed to discount anything from a California Lawyers until they get the said Bar Association to grow some balls, behave like a professional organization and deal with this charleton, pretend, correspondence diploma mill ‘lawyer’. Therefore Yoda wins.
But that means Orly isn’t lying.
Aaaaarrrrrrrggggggghhhhhh.
I am glad we could entertain you
I guess in your world there is no such thing as a crime. After all, criminal acts are prohibited, right?
You circle the point but never get it. She clearly filed a motion to compel discovery. Yes, it was based on the wrong kind of subpoena. Yes, she did ex parte, Yes, she labeled it wrong. Yes, she filed it before she even served the subpoena, Yes, she is seeking confidential documents. Yes yes yes yes, she filed a piece of crap. But as soon as she said that it was being filed under the Code of Civil Procedure relating to non party discovery, it became a discovery motion for the court to deal with.
In another Court, she filed an action for a Writ of Mandamus. The state had prohibited actions for writ of manadmus. Does it change the fact that she filed it anyway? NO.
Yes, Orly abuses the system. Yes she regularly lies to court. Yes, I would love to see her sanctioned for this. But there is enough gray area for her to wiggle out of this? Probably.
By the way, everything Orly files is crap.
There are times when a wrong motion is filed. And sometimes they are called the wrong things. For example, the Federal rules outlaw demurrers. It is possible that some attorney may file a demurrer because he/she does not know the rules. One judge may simply say that demurrers are not allowed, but treat it as a 12(b)6. Another judge may deny or strike the Motion on the basis that demurrers are not allowed a third yet may dismiss and sanction the attorney under Federal Rule 11.
But whether the judge treats it as a 12(b)(6) motion or dismisses and/or sanctions, cannot change the fact that the attorney filed a demurrer.
As much as I dislike how Orly practices law, I cannot pretend that she did not do what she obviously did simply because I want her to get sanctioned. She clearly filed an improper Motion under the discovery portion of the CCP. That is why she was sanctioned. It does not and cannot change the nature of the motion simply because she what she filed was improper. This is especially true because everything she files is improper.
The ultimate question is whether Orly lied. Unfortunately, we do not know exactly what she said to the Judge. If she said she received a sanction that was related to a discovery motion, she didn’t lie and she wasn’t even wrong. If she said that she received a discovery sanction, she is wrong, but didn’t lie. However, it is possible that the Court will look past her incompetence and say that she was under a duty to know the difference and her ignorance is not an excuse. But, as I have said many times now, the most likely scenario for her to get sanctioned is for her to run her mouth. If she calls either this Judge or the Judge who levied the 4k fine as dishonest or corrupt, she not only will get fined, she could be held in contempt.
I can’t cite evidence off hand, but my impression is that Taitz is always more prudent when representing her own interests than when she is pursuing Obama, or representing someone else. My guess is that the response to the OSC will be straightforward, and that if it tends to extreme, it will be against the Plaintiffs and not the judge.
Yoda,
If Taitz went to court for a hearing on a legitimate discovery matter (such as a motion to compel answers to interrogatories against a party); and if at the conference she started screaming and told the Judge that he was guilty of treason and said that the Judge and Obama ought to be executed…. if the Judge then held her in contempt and sent her to jail….
by your rationale she could say that she was jailed because of a “discovery motion.”
Again, the Judge didn’t ask her what type of motion she brought. He asked her why she was sanctioned.
I understand why Doc C. did not understand the distinction between a CCP 1987.2 sanction and a CCP 2023 sanction, which is why I posted and explained the difference.
When the Federal Judge asked Taitz why she was sanctioned, she could have said truthfully, “I was ordered to pay attorneys fees as a result of a motion to quash a subpoena”.
She did not say that.
The reason that this is a relevant and important distinction is that California law requires all lawyers to report any sanctions in an amount over $1000, with one exception: we do not have to report sanctions for “failure to make discovery”.
“Make discovery” means failure to properly respond to a discovery request by another party. (It has to be another party, because the lawyer is never in a position of “making discovery” to a nonparty).
The reason for that distinction, I think, is because sometimes lawyers are in an ethical bind when it comes to protecting confidential and privileged information. The lawyer is duty bound to assert the privilege (resist discovery), but sometimes the lawyer is mistaken, and the judge finds the matter to be non-privileged and orders it disclosed. So I think the State Bar decided to cut lawyers who are resisting giving up information a little bit of a break, because it would be very complicated to try to investigate and discipline a lawyer under those circumstances anyway.
When the Federal Judge asked Taitz why she failed to report her $4000 sanction (which is the only question that would be pertinent to the court), the reference to “discovery” would be relevant only if Taitz was saying, “I don’t have to report that sanction because it was for my failure to make discovery.”
That’s why the Judge is ticked off at her. He probably now has the same copy of the court ruling that we do, and can see for himself that it was not the type of “discovery” sanction that is exempt from reporting.
It’s like when Bill Clinton said “I did not have sex with that woman.” He thought he was telling the truth because by “sex” he really meant “sexual intercourse” and not blow jobs, and in any case, it all depended on “what the meaning of is, is” …. but to everyone else, it was an outright lie.
This is particularly important because, although I don’t have a clue what the Liberi v. Taitz case is about, I am getting the sense that the Federal Judge is unhappy with dealing with unethical, rule-breaking, rogue attorneys. Taitz’ conduct in bringing that motion is extremely unethical, rule-breaking, and rogue. She violated a whole slew of laws in California designed to protect multiple due process and privacy protections. What she was doing was a cheating maneuver that would only be done by a dirty, underhanded lawyer. (While you might assume that it is harmless because no Judge would grant the ex parte application, you have to keep in mind that the voters of San Diego elected Gary Kreep to the bench … there’s always the chance that Taitz could actually get away with her crap because of some inept or incompetent judge or pro tem commissioner.)
That is why the Federal Judge is ticked off, and why he issued the OSC.
This discussion is a little beyond my qualifications to understand, and there are some unknowns as to exactly who said what (both Taitz and Marginis). The order in Taitz v. Liberi after Orly responds to the OSC should clarify things greatly.
While I see your point, I think you have your analogies are poor. I would never say that that situation was related to a discover matter. That is purely silly and had nothing to do with the motion itself. In this case she was sanctioned for the motion itself. It is obvious that you simply do not get what I am saying. She was clearly sanctioned because she brought an improper discovery Motion.
However, you did explain something that I was not aware of under California law that at least allows me to understand what your thought process is. So, as I understand it, the $1000 rule relates to the obligation to report the sanction to the disciplinary board. Therefore, I gather your point is that the $4000 sanction has ethical implications unless it was for failing to make discovery, as you termed it, i.e. a discovery sanction. Therefore because the 4k was not a discovery sanction, she was required to report it to the judge under his order. Based on that analysis, I agree she lieo and to the Judge. Had you mentioned this obligation before, we could have come to an agreement an agreement two days ago.
By the way, you don’t have to explain discovery processes to me. Trust me, I understand it as well as you do.
No she wasn’t.
The order is crystal clear: she was sanctioned under CCP 1987.2,, when the Judge granted Occidental’s motion to quash the subpena “served” by email at 3;30pm on October 31st. There is no other possible interpretation of the order.
If she had been sanctioned for bringing the “motion”, the court would have cite CCP 2023.
I did, on January 26th. Here’s a link to my post:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/taitz-tells-the-truth-gets-blasted-anyway/#comment-241318
Expel-once again you show an amazing lack of ability to focus on what is relevant. You are too focused on the rule and I am focused on the conduct. The action that precipitated the sanction order was the filing of the improper motion.
—
This is a Birther v. Birther suit. Apparently Taitz and her investigators did background checks on the competition, and shared info like SS#s on the Internet…. I think the Judge is also very pissed that Taitz has “acted extremely unprofessionally in this Court of the United States of America by rolling her eyes and exhibiting gestures of contempt.” See 10/22 order.
I am tired of your personal insults. I will not be responding any further to your posts.
Frankly, you have been very condescending for someone who thinks that discovery is limited to conduct between between parties. i am sorry if you feel insulted, but I while I gave you back the same attitude you gave me , I hardly insulted you.
We do that all the time. We certify cases and then serve non-party subpoenas. It doesn’t affect the certification of the case.
Yes, if it is a trial deposition. If it is a discovery deposition you would need the consent of the opposing counsel.
No, I’m talking about EBT’s. The opposing counsel can try to quash it, but they would need more reason that the fact that the discovery between the parties has been completed. Maybe things are different in NY.
Maybe they are and I shouldn’t speak for the entire country. I realize that practices and procedures are different in various parts of the country, sometimes even within the same state. In the area that I am most familiar with, even a discovery motion that is filed after the discovery deadline will not be heard. So you could not enforce a subpoena served on a non party witness if that witness chose to not attend the deposition.
As soon as you used the the abbreviation EBT I thought you might be from NY. I practiced there a long long time ago and I had not seen that in a long time.
The point of my post, and I could have been more tactful, was that serving subpoenas on non party witnesses to appear at depositions or to turn over documents is part of the discovery process. I was just a little heavy handed in making my point.
It is pathetically sad that Orly wouldn’t understand a single word you lawyers are saying.
Orly is trying to appeal her Occidental sanctions, but her appeal has been rejected twice because of her failure to file it properly. The court is giving her until February 14 to get it right.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/122805107/CA-Taitz-v-Occidental-Sanctions-Appeal-2013-01-28-ORDER
MN-Skeptic:
regular watchers of law and order would understand more “law” than taitz
The 14th? But don’t they know that she’ll be prepaaring for her hearing before SCOTUS the next day?
Regular watchers of infomercials understand more law than Taitz.
Well, it’s been a while since Orly claimed a vast conspiracy by all courts against her. Let her embrace the opportunity.
People who stay at a Holiday Inn Express have a better understanding of the law than Taitz
A bad quality Xerox copy of Orly has a better understanding of the law than Taitz.