IN – Orly v Election Commission – Hearing to show case

Wow… Not only does it fail to address the issues but Orly also uses this as an opportunity to accuse Judge Reid

Not conducting investigation of forgery of Obama’s IDs and not directing Attorney General to do so will actually constitute an egregious violation of the code of Judicial conduct by Honorable Judge Reid.

Just as when asked by Judge Land to present her case as to why she should not be sanctioned, Orly responds with meritless accusations. Let’s hope that the Judge will act accordingly

Response to 11.09.2012 fax from Judge Reid sent to attorney Gregg Black and forwarded by Gregg Black to Orly Taitz via fax

Attn Honorable Judge Reid

Dear Judge Reid,

1. I received from you a letter stating that this court intends to hold a hearing to show cause regarding release and publication of a certain audio transcript of the October 22 hearing, which contains expert testimony of forgery in the birth certificate of Barack Obama. “Parties are ordered to show cause  whether or not they should be in Contempt of Court for the release and posting on “Youtube” of the audio recording of October 22, 2012 hearing, all in violation of this court order and pursuant to the Code of Judicial Conduct rule 2.17”

Continue reading

IN – Taitz v Election Commission – Was audio of the hearing ‘leaked’

Praise Indy reports that

In late September, Marion Superior Court Judge S.K. Reid ordered that a hearing be held to determine if Taitz and the other plaintiffs had any case to be adjudicated.  That led to the hearing October 22nd.

Audio of that hearing was uploaded to You Tube on November 1st by someone identifying themselves as “jdirt100”. No other information about that individual is contained on You Tube. Indiana media are forbidden under Indiana law to air audio (or video) of an Indiana court proceeding that wasn’t authorized by that court.  Further we aren’t allowed to post the link to that audio.

Superior Court officials and the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission are investigating who might have made the audio recording and uploaded it to You Tube.  Chances that it was personnel in Judge Reid’s court or members of the defense are very slim as that would be strict violation of Indiana court rules and would result in individuals being fired and possibly losing their licenses to practice law.

Orly insists that

Somebody, a third party,  uploaded on you tube an audio tape, which was legally recorded by the court itself and was legally sold by the court itself, by the court reporter Julie, to a number of people.

The article states

” Audio recordings of Indiana Supreme, Appellate and Tax Court hearings and trials can be made public, but only with the express approval of those courts. Local court proceedings are not to be made broadcast or posted on line.”

There is a pilot project going on in Indiana

“This is a deliberate and wise examination,” of how such a system would work, said Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford, who is among those overseeing a pilot project at the direction of the Indiana Supreme Court. The project will install automated video systems in the courtrooms of Allen Superior Judge Nancy Boyer, Marion Superior Judge Mark Stoner and Tippecanoe Superior Judge Loretta Rush.

IN – Orly v Election Commission – Motion to compel

Things are warming up in Orly’s Indiana case. She has or is going to file motions to compel appearances at trial although I am somewhat confused. What information does Arpaio and/or Zullo have about the defendant(s) in Indiana? As far as I can tell, President Obama is not a defendant. Well, time to bring out the popcorn and see where this is heading… 6 days until the ‘trial’ which will be not much different from Orly’s experience in Georgia I predict.

Orly mentions the:

Motion to compel appearance at trial. I need $350 to pay court fee in the Superior Court in AZ and I will need to do the same in Colorado with Sampson. I am angry that donations will have to go to compel them to appear at trial, aftert they raised reported 7 million and did nothing!!!

This motion by Plaintiff seeks to compel appearance of the Defendant Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Joseph Arpaio and Investigator Sheriff Department Maricopa County, Arizona Mike Zullo on the scheduled hearing on the 22 October 2012 at 10am o’clock the Superior Court of Indiana, Indianapolis, Division 14, Honorable Judge Sherry K. Reid in the case No 49D14-1203-MI-012046 . Arpaio and Zullo are important witnesses in the abovementioned case since they possess valuable information about the identity of the Defendant in the abovementioned case.

[…]

Both Arpaio and Zullo were served with subpoenas to appear at the hearings in similar cases, but ultimately refused to appear claiming that it will be too burdensome for them, while they travelled extensively around the country promoting the subjrct matter of this case and raising money for the investigation of the case.

Plaintiff in the abovementioned case complied with all the applicable rules when issuing a subpoena and is willing to provide Arpaio and Zullo with the fee reimbursement which will relieve Mr. Arpaio and Mr. Zullo from any monetary burden.

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks an order to compel Defendants Arpaio and Zullo to appear on the scheduled hearing in the case No49D14-1203-MI-012046 on the 22 day of October 2012, at 10 am Superior court division 14, Indianapolis Indiana .

And follows up with an e-mail

Sheriff, Sheriff, Mike, Joseph, bcc: me, bcc: Yulia

Dear, Sheriff Arpaio, Investigator Zullo, Counsel Vigil,

Please find attached Motion to compel your appearance at trial in Indianapolis on October 22, 10 am, Superior Court, Division 14, Judge Reid.

Please, advise me whether you decided to appear at trial. If not, whether you will appear at the emergency hearing in the Superior Court of AZ to compel your appearance at trial pursuant to the subpoena. This is an urgent matter, the trial is in 6 days and I will be seeking an expedited hearing

IN – Orly v Election Commission – AZ Order to compel

Orly filed a corrected motion, blaming her ‘paralegal’. But it was hardly a small error… Orly at her finest, I’d say. More popcorn please..

AZ corrected motion to compel My paralegal made a small error. The word “defendant” in the motion was replaced with the word “person of interest”, as Obama is not a defendant in AZ case

IN – Orly v Election Commission – Zullo/Arpaio

On Friday, October the 12th you received court issued subpoenas for Sheriff Arpaio and investigator Zullo to appear at trial in Taitz, Swihart, Weyl, Kern, Kesler, Ripley v Secretary of State of Indiana and Elections Commission of Indiana to be held on October 22, 10am in the Division 4 of the Superior Court of Indiana in Indianapolis before Hon Judge Reid and testify regarding your findings of forgeries in Barack Obama’s birth certificate, Selective Service certificate and Social Secuity card. You are not asked to testify to something that is a secret, you are asked to authenticate in court before Judge Reid what you already stated publicly in press conferences. If you do not respond and agree to testify, I will have no other choice, but to file as early as tomorrow, October 15th an emergency miscellaneous case in Phoenix AZ and seek an order from Arizona judge to compel you to comply with the out of state subpoena and testify on October 22nd at trial in Indianapolis.

An emergency miscellaneous case… wow.. Let’s hope she gets her wish and we may see Arpaio and Zullo finally testify under penalty of perjury. This Country deserves to hear the truth…

I am somewhat worried that Orly fail to understand how to properly effect a subpoena though. Whenever one compels a witness to testify and said witness can claim State or Federal Sovereignty, things can get confusing quite quickly. Sterngard Friegen at the Fogbow has located an interesting case outlining some of the problems involved when asking a federal officer to testify:

 In re Subpoena on Collins, Voyle v. Smithkline, 524 F.3d 249. (D.C. Cir. 2008)

While in this case the Appeal’s Court overruled the lower court’s decision to have the case removed to Federal Court, it was done because the federal defendant was asked to testify about personal observations, not directly related to his official duties.