Posted on 01/13/2010 1:08:11 PM PST by Seizethecarp
Today I was in federal court for several hours. Rivernider vs US Bank. I testified against Orly Taitz. Orly Taitz was present as well and also testified.
In court today I watched as Orly Taitz told lie after lie while under oath on the witness stand. She claimed that she has never in her life given anyone permission to sign her signature. (This hearing today was about Orly's claim that Charles Edward Lincoln III forged her signature on a filing in Rivernider vs US Bank). Attorney Phil Berg was present as counsel to Charles Lincoln.
Phil Berg went on to question Orly Taitz as to why then, if she had never given anyone permission to sign her signature, why then had she while in Israel contacted Charles Lincoln and told him to advise one of her dental staff in California to sign her (Orly's) name to payrol checks for the employees. Orly Taitz started to reply with one story that her signature is not used on payrol checks but then Phil Berg asked her who then is it that signs off on employee hours to verify them for the payrol. At this time Orly then started in with a new story that she took payroll checks with her to Isael and signed the payrol checks there in Israel and mailed them to her dental employees from back in the USA. ???????????????? I don't think anyone bought that story.
At this time Orly started complaining that she was being badgered and that she objects and a string of other legal terms that, depending on what she said, was either the role of witness, attorney and even the role of judge.
Two members of the website, Politijab.com, were present.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
This is a non-birther legal dispute between Lincoln and Taitz where Smith was a witness to certain events between the two. Lincoln and Smith are testifying that Taitz is lying regarding legal work that was supposed to be done involving real estate and Berg is representing Lincoln. I believe that Berg may have had a previous dispute with Taitz.
My personal assessment, after reading Smith's affidavit and knowing what Taitz is capable of after she went off on Judge Land, is that Taitz will not be found to be credible.
This, in combination with Judge Carter's refusal today to “transfer” her quo warranto case to DC may well be the end of Taitz’ involvement in birther lawsuits, and even an end to her practice of law.
Although Taitz was able to draw TV coverage to the issue and could articulate the BC/NBC issues if given a chance I must say that she did more to contribute to the circus aspect than anyone with her wild accusations against judges and her ineffectiveness as a lawyer. I say this as a person who sent her a small contribution, which I regretted after she attacked Judge Land and apparently drove Lucas Smith away by asking him to lie as well, depending on who you believe.
Going forward my only hope is with Leo Donofrio's quo warranto filing that is supposed to be coming soon.
“This is a non-birther legal dispute between Lincoln and Taitz where Smith was a witness ... “
But that’s my point. There are cases like this in every court across the country every day of the year. No one ever hears about them. But because this group, perhaps most especially Taitz, but Berg as well, have made themselves the ‘face’ of what has come to be called disparagingly the ‘birther movement,’ it is being reported. I wish they would all just go away and leave it to the attorneys who act professionally.
Smith and Taitz are both risible punchlines.
And your assessment, apparently based solely on the testimony of a dodgy character such as Smith, will prove 100% incorrect. Smith has no proof of any of his assertions, and he certainly doesn't have any veracity as a character witness.
Magistrate judges don't take kindly to disbarred lawyers who forge a lawyer's signature, no matter how incompetent and vindictive that lawyer may be.
Then perhaps we're not talking about the same BC; there is plenty of evidence the doctor spells his name Heltan and not Helton as it appears on Smith's certificate.
Please provide links to your “plenty of evidence”. Opinions posted by Mik Taerg aka Great Kim don't count. Neither to newspaper stories where reporters routinely misspell names.
Most likely user lucysmom is an Obot or Greatkim her/himself.
Here we go again with the Helton/Heltan name spelling. First, there are far more references to HeltOn than there are to HeltAn. These are from Kenyan sources, and not from people quoting the birth certificate.
Kenyan newspaper have spelled his name both ways. In fact, in Swahili names are spelled phonetically as they sound and do not follow a set standard as to a particular spelling.
I suppose Barack Obama is fraud himself because his name can be spelled several ways in Kenya. Barak, Barrak, Barrack, Barack. Which is correct? Is he an imposter? Oh dear, we been douped, his name is spelled several different ways in Kenya. Do we have the correct Barack Obama! Please, Obots, quickly assemble a research team to ascertain which is the correct spelling. HA HA HA HA.
We as Americans must remember that our cultures and norms are not the same as those in other countries, especially Africa.
Well did he do that? If not, then under the evidence rules the document has no place in the courtroom.
Both Judge Carter and Judge Land with their FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals for “failure to state a claim” denied standing to the plaintiffs thus precluding the discovery process in which all BC related documents can be authenticated to the extent possible, and witnesses, like Fukino, Obuko, the HI AB and Smith, can be deposed.
Judge Carter said that even if the Smith BC was fully authenticated by Kenya officials, Carter would be unlikely to give greater weight to a Kenya BC over an equally authenticated HI BC.
Judge Carter assumed, without having the HI vital records released, that discovery of those records would not raise questions and issues that might lead to greater weight being given to the Kenyan BC.
For example, the HI vital records may have been amended from showing a Kenya birth location to showing an HI birth location. Subsequent to such an amendment, “properly” filed, HI officials would be legally required to attest to an HI birth for Obama and precluded from making reference to the pre-amendment Kenya birth, such as is shown on the Blaine BC, for example.
Judge Robertson in the Hollister case also granted an FRCP 12(b)(6) dismissal by stating that Obama’s birth location had been Factchecked, blogged and twittered, none of which meets FRE requirements. Robertson, like Carter, precluded any discovery involving actual authentication of HI vital records in the context of HI Territorial Law 57 and statements of HI officials regarding amendments or Obama’s NBC status.
Theoretically (but not realistically), both Carter and Robertson might be overturned for failure to give adequate weight to the possibility that with discovery under the FRE, plaintiffs could prove-up their documents.
"Might," "may," "possibly" and "if" have no weight under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The issue of the COLB's authenticity was not Carter's decision to make. In case you've forgotten, there are no laws, anywhere in either the Federal or State governments, that specifically demand a candidate for POTUS to present a birth certificate, and/or to provide proof of its authenticity.
On the other hand, an attorney filing a lawsuit asserting that a Kenyan Birth Certificate is authentic has to prove, by expert certification, that it is authentic.
Taitz didn't assert that either the 1964 BC or the Smith 1961 BC were authentic, she asked for discovery to authenticate them using court ordered subpoenas including deposing Smith as to how he obtained his BC. Discovery would include discovery of the original HI vital record for comparison and to resolve discrepancies.
To get to discovery, Taitz and Kreep had to survive a 12(b)(6) challenge meaining that even if their claims as to authenticity of the Kenya BC were true, could they prevail?
Judge Carter's 12(b)(6) dismissal precluded discovery and submission of any evidence under the FRE. Judge Carter ruled that even if the Kenyan authorities fully validated Smith's BC, that validation couldn't overcome the Factcheck COLB (not in evidence) or the statements of HI officials on Obama’s NBC status (not in evidence or subject to cross-examination either).
In effect, Carter presumed that the best that Taitz and Kreep could hope for after all of the evidence was in was a “he said, she said” standoff between HI and Kenya and that he, as a USA federal judge, would be compelled to rule in favor of HI authorities and against Kenya authorities.
I think Carter's presumption is presumptuous!
I am holding out hope that at least one 9th Circuit judge will disagree with Carter on this particular point, even if they don't overturn the dismissal, assuming Taitz gets her appeal together. Kreep didn't make representations about BC's at trial or in his appeal, now that I think about it. (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. I just play one on FR!)
Where, in the Federal Rules, is it the Court's responsibility to grant discovery to appellants for the purpose of authenticating documents introduced as evidence?
Please cite the rule.
You meant plaintiff, of course, but that is what court ordered discovery is. But you don't get discovery without standing, which Carter didn't grant.
If the court finds that a plaintiff meets the requirements for standing, and that means surviving a hearing on a 12(b) motion to dismiss filed by the defense, then the court will issue a discovery order.
The discovery order authorizes both parties to take depositions of witnesses (their own and the other party's) including custodians of documents who they intend to call at trial to testify about the documents the parties intend to introduce as evidence.
There is no requirement that evidence be introduced under the FRE either in the initial filing or at a 12(b) motion to dismiss hearing, except in limited circumstances that Carter didn't grant.
What got some people excited was that when Carter first set the trail date (in early Sept?), he issued a routine preliminary discovery order and made comments in open court to the effect that he didn't expect the defense's 12(b) motion to dismiss to prevail.
That is when Orly jumped the shark (again) and claimed she would have Obama out of office in 30 days assuming she could get discovery of the HI vital records and depose Smith on how he got the BC and perhaps depose and obtain affidavits from Kenyan officials.
But, of course, the defense then filed a motion to stay discovery until after the 12(b) hearing, and the stay was granted. Then the motion to dismiss was granted. Then the dismissal was granted “with prejudice.” Game over in lower court.
You are completely mis-stating what happened.
Carter stated that in general, 12(b)(6) motions do not prevail, which is accurate. Orly and all her supporters took this to mean that she prevailed. Which is idiotic.
He ordered discovery as it related to the 12(b)(6) motion only. In other words, only evidence that would support standing was available.
Orly and all her supporters took this to mean that she could fish for evidence of Obama’s birth circumstances. Which is idiotic.
Finally, you are still missing the point of the Fed Rules of Evidence.
It’s not the Court’s job to authenticate evidence. If you bring a document, it’s not up to the court to determine if it is real or not. It’s not up to the court to help you prove that it is real or not. It is up to you to bring proof that it is real. If you can’t do that without the court’s help, tough.
Orly wants the court to conduct an investigation, not a trial.
I never made any of the assertions about the FRE that you claim I made. Where did I say it is “the Court’s job to authenticate evidence?”
Your statement of what Judge Carter said is more general and accurate, but we both agree that Orly and her followers misinterpreted it. I said Orly “jumped the shark.” Is that a complete misstatement of what happened?
Sounds like we mostly said the same thing.
You still seem to think that Carter could have helped her more with the Lucas Smith document. Or should have least given it some thought.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I think she should be sanctioned for presenting it to a court.
“Correct me if I am wrong.
“I think she should be sanctioned for presenting it to a court.”
Taitz sanctioned for presenting the BC(s)? Under what provision of law? The 1964 BC was an exhibit that she stated she had not yet verified, and the 1961 Smith BC was filed as part of his affidavit. I don't believe she made any false statements about either to the court, although Smith claims she asked him to.
Ultimately Judge Carter decided that this was a quo warranto in the wrong court, and in any case no remedy was requested that his court could grant (non-justiciability).
My problem with Carter and the Smith BC was that Carter presumed that discovery in Kenya and HI could not possibly favor the Kenya BC. I think this might be an error.
If, after discovery, a jury or judge could be persuaded that the Kenya BC was more credible than the HI vital records, a jury or judge might find Obama to have been born in Kenya. Judge Carter doesn't allow for the possibility of a Kenya BC “win”. The best case he sees for the Kenya BC is a tie with the HI vital records.
Judge Carter didn't say that Taitz wouldn't be entitled to a normal discovery order if he dismissed the 12(b) motion to dismiss. He just decided that any discovery wouldn't overcome a presumption in his mind that in a US court an HI authentication would trump a Kenya authentication. I disagree with the reasoning of that particular ruling. I don't think Carter cited any statute or case law supporting this part of the ruling.
Quoting from the transcript
The Court: And you understand that one of the Federal Rules of Evidence is that for a court to consider a document as documentary evidence in a court of law -- I'm not talking about at a press conference or on a TV show or in a Fox and Friends. I'm talking about, in a court of law, the judge has to determine whether there's been sufficient foundation laid as to authenticity to consider a document that's admitted into evidence. Tell me what it is that you've done to establish the evidentiary foundation for this Kenyan document. My understanding of what you have done is, you have got an individual who went and got this piece of paper, who says he got it from this office in Kenya, and he says they gave it to him as this birth certificate. There's no official --
Taitz: Your Honor --
The Court: -- in Kenya that signed any authenticity certificate.
"Tell me what it is that you've done to establish the evidentiary foundation for this Kenyan document. My understanding of what you have done is, you have got an individual who went and got this piece of paper, who says he got it from this office in Kenya, and he says they gave it to him as this birth certificate. There's no official in Kenya that signed any authenticity certificate."
In an affidavit to Judge Carter, Smith swore that Taitz never assisted Smith in authenticating his document despite his repeated requests that she help him to legally authenticate it. If true, this speaks well of Lucas Smith and not well of Taitz.
This transcript quote appears to be from Taitz' attempt at the first hearing (Sept?) to obtain "emergency" testimony from Smith about the BC based an an alleged threat on Smith's life after a car almost hit him. Judge Carter didn't buy it. The judge appears to be on the way to informing Taitz that under the FRE, a foreign document must be authenticated by a foreign official from the country. Taitz appears not to have been aware of this.
Seriously, who is Mik Taerg aka Great Kim?
How about the Surgical Society of Kenya?
http://sskenya.org/?page_id=254
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.