Replies

First, have to understand what motionS are at issue:

A. THE "DISCOVERY" MOTION
From the Judge's Order:
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato’s August 6, 2009 Order Striking Filed Documents from the Record and Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), filed with the Court on August 18, 2009, and noticed for a hearing on September 14, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. (the “Discovery Motion”). Despite the September 14, 2009 noticed hearing date, Plaintiffs request an “earlier and expedited” hearing on the Discovery Motion. Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request, the Court hereby sets a new hearing date on the matter for Tuesday, September 8, 2009, at 8:00 a.m.

This Motion is Taitz's Motion to
(a) Review Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato’s Order that struck her motion to depose Hillary Clinton, require Clinton to produce passport documents and to issue a letters rogatory (a legal document that can help get documents in a foreign country -- if we have a treaty with them where they recognize the letters rogatory. (I'm fairly certain that we don't have such a treaty with Kenya.). Nakazato did not consider that motion "on the merits." Instead, he struck the motion from the record, citing multiple errors in filing.

So at the hearing, the Parties will get to argue to the judge whether Nakazato was correct to strike the motion from the record or whether he should have considered the motion on the merits, because the motion had no errors (or.. something. I'm not sure what given that she filed an amended pleading (WHICH IS NOT AT ISSUE IN THIS HEARING) "correcting" the errors.

(b) Recuse Nakazato from the case. Here, Taitz argues that Nakazato's actions in strking the motion for "hypertechnical" reasons shows that he is biased against her case. Therefore, she wants him recused from the case. Given that she filed an amended pleading correcting the errors, I think this part of the motion is going to to hard for her to make. How can she say that he was wrong to apply the rules to her when her amended pleading shows that she really DID make errors in the first one?

In any event, at the hearing, the parties will get to argue whether Nakazato's actions show his bias and, if so, whether he should be recused from the case (i.e., have another magistrate judge assigned to handle discovery issues.)

B. SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT
From the Judge's Order:
In addition, the Government filed with this Court on August 19, 2009, a Notice of Failure by Plaintiffs to Properly Effect Service of Process (the “Service Notice”). By the Service Notice, the Government represents that the United States Attorney’s Office is willing to accept service of process on behalf of all named Defendants “if Plaintiffs would properly file and serve the First Amended Complaint and Summons.” See Service Notice at 4 (emphasis in original). While the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed with the Court on July 15, 2009,1 it appears that Plaintiffs still have failed to serve both the FAC and Summons on the United States Attorney’s Office, despite its willingness to accept service of process on behalf of all Defendants. As such, Plaintiffs are ordered to properly serve the FAC and Summons on the United States Attorney’s Office on or before September 8, 2009, at 8:00 a.m.

So, here, the Judge was telling her that she STILL hadn't correctly served the defendants, and ordered her to do so by the 8th. (I think she did so, although her proof of service has some errors.

So, at the hearing, I don't think the parties will have anything to argue about - this should be a nonissue now.

C. ROBINSON/DRAKE APPLICATION
From the Judge's Order:
Finally, On August 19, 2009, the Court received an Ex Parte Application for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (the “Ex Parte Application”) on behalf of Plaintiffs Markham Robinson and Dr. Wiley S. Drake (the “Moving Plaintiffs”), through their attorney, Gary G. Kreep. The Moving Plaintiffs also seek to file their Ex Parte Application under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5. The Moving Plaintiffs essentially contend that when they sought to substitute Gary Kreep as counsel due to their dissatisfaction with Dr. Orly Taitz, Ms. Taitz improperly and without their consent filed a voluntary dismissal of them from the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). See Doc. No. 33. As such, they seek reconsideration of the voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The Court finds that this matter is not appropriate for resolution on an ex parte basis. Nor does this matter warrant filing documents under seal. Therefore, the Court also sets this matter for hearing on September 8, 2009, at 8:00 a.m. At the scheduled hearing time, the parties shall be prepared to discuss the merits of their dispute and to resolve both the motion for reconsideration as well as the substitution of counsel.

So, at the hearing, the Parties will get to argue whether Taitz's actions in filing the "Voluntary Dismissal" of Robinson and Drake, without their knowledge or permission, was improper and whether they can substitute Gary Kreep as their counsel and stay in the case.

So can someone please splain what can happen with this motion?

I just gave the details, with the Judge’s order text included. Now, here’s the “upshot”

A. THE “DISCOVERY MOTION”:
This motion is, essentially, Taitz v. Nakazato. IF Taitz wins this motion then Nakazato will be recused and Carter, or more likely, a different Magistrate Judge will decide her amended discovery motion that she filed on August 20 — AFTER the defendants have an opportunity to file objections. If she loses, then Nakazato will decide her amended Aug 20 motion — again — AFTER the defendants (who were not yet even served with the Complaint when she filed the motion) have an opportunity to file an objection.

SO — will the Judge decide on September 8 whether Taitz gets her requested discovery? NO. He’ll decide what judge is going to decide whether Taitz gets her requested discovery.

B. SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT.
As I said, I think this is going to be a non-issue as I think Taitz properly served the defendants on August 25.

C. THE ROBINSON/DRAKE APPLICATION
This motion is, essentially, Taitz v. Robinson/Drake. If Taitz wins this application (which is being treated as a motion now), then Robinson and Drake are dismissed from the case. If Taitz loses this motion, then, at a minimum, Robinson and Drake get to stay in the case, and get to have Gary Kreep represent them. Whether Taitz gets sanctioned for impropriety with respect to clients is an unknown. IF Robinson/Drake’s allegations are true, then sanctions are possible because the California Bar rules prohibit an attorney from doing what they allege that she did.