Taitz Mississippi Hearing Transcript – Part 5 – Sanctions

THE COURT: Do I — should I anticipate any motions from the defense?

MR. TEPPER: We may make a motion, Your Honor, under 28 USC 1927 for attorneys fees and sanctions, but we probably will await the court’s ruling on the dispositive motions first, Your Honor.

[NBC: Nice reminder to Orly who will probably not understand the effect of such a motion..]

THE COURT: A section 1927 motion will be premature at this point, wouldn’t you agree?

MR. TEPPER: We do believe so, Your Honor, yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, then if you have the basis for such a motion, then I will hear it at the appropriate time. But that motion does not pertain to the motion for judgment on the pleading. Do you agree with that?

MR. TEPPER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: For the benefit of plaintiff, where — you know, I presume that you understand the Section 1927 motion?

DR. TAITZ: Yes your Honor.

THE COURT: I mean what he might be filing. He hasn’t filed anything yet.

DR. TAITZ: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: But you understand that that motion will be directed at a party who has multiplied the court proceedings unnecessarily and has essentially wasted judicial resources in submitting some issue before the court.

DR. TAITZ: And —

THE COURT: Now, that matter is not ripe before me. I’m just making sure you understood what he was saying.

DR. TAITZ: Well, it is ripe for sanctions against the defendants because —

THE COURT: I know you —

DR. TAITZ: — they have defrauded the court at least twice, and I would like to know what would you rule on this, Your Honor?

[NBC: Orly is still confused about the issue. Tepper never asked the Court to take judicial notice of the birth certificate but rather of the verification they submitted. Poor Orly, she cannot get even the simplest details correct and now believes that she has a case for sanctions…] [1]

THE COURT: You don’t have a ruling. You don’t have a motion on this right now that I’m taking up.

DR. TAITZ: I —

THE COURT: I will take up any other motion, any other motions after I have taken up the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

[1] Orly filed a motion for sanctions because she misunderstood why Tepper et al filed a legible copy of Obama’s birth certificate, a certificate which Orly herself had submitted. They never asked the court to take judicial notice of this document and instead asked the Court to take judicial notice of the explicit statements by the Department of Health of Hawaii.

Orly:

On 05.04.2012 attorneys Samuel Begley, member of the Mississippi Bar (Hereinafter Begley) and Scott J. Tepper, member of the California Bar, admitted in Mississippi pro hac vice (Hereinafter Tepper) submitted a motion in the case CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12cv280-HTW-LRA which contained documents (motion for a judgment on the Pleadings and Exhibits), which represent forgeries (long Form Birth Certificate) (Exhibit 1). Begley and Tepper requested for such forgeries to be accepted by the court for a judicial notice and ruling on the pleadings. Begley and Tepper acted knowingly, with malice and with moral turpitude, with an intent to defraud the court and to defraud the public at large.

[NBC: Tepper and Begley never did such a thing. Poor Orly…]

Realist at the Fogbow explains:

Counsel noted in the MDEC’s Memo in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF 18), that “irrespective of the contents of President Obama’s publicly released birth records [i.e., REGARDLESS of the existence of the short-form and long-form birth certificate], the Hawaii Department of Health has independently verified that President Obama was born in Hawaii,” then explained the rules regarding judicial notice, then stated that “As such, the Court may take judicial notice of the fact that the State of Hawaii has independently verified that President Obama was born in Hawaii.” (MDEC Memo at page 18.

And, as explained in the MDEC Counsel Opposition to Taitz Motion for Sanctions (ECF 30):

Tepper & Begley wrote:
3. The fallacy of Taitz’s claim that MDEC Counsel asked the court to take judicial notice is clear from a basic review of the pleadings at issue. Simply put, and as anyone who took care to read the motion can see, MDEC Counsel did not ask the Court to take judicial notice of President Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate (“LFBC”) in the MDEC Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. See MDEC Motion at ¶11. Nor did MDEC Counsel make any such request in the MDEC’s memorandum filed in support of the motion. See MDEC Memo at 18-20. 4. In fact, in the course of setting forth why the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) [Docket No. 1-1] must be dismissed, MDEC Counsel cited to applicable authority (MDEC Memo at 18) – which Taitz’s Motion for Sanctions has utterly failed to even address, much less distinguish – demonstrating that “irrespective of the contents of President Obama’s publicly released birth records,” the Court may take judicial notice of several statements made by the Hawaii Department of Health verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii, regardless of the existence or contents of the LFBC. See MDEC Memo at 18. In other words, not only did MDEC Counsel not ask the Court to take judicial notice of President Obama’s LFBC––but MDEC Counsel expressly stated that the LFBC itself was irrelevant to the Court’s consideration of its motion. And even if the LFBC would be relevant (which, as MDEC Counsel had just been explained, it is not), the Court could take judicial notice of other statements made by the Hawaii Department of Health regarding the document. See id. at 19-20. In short, Taitz’s claim that MDEC Counsel asked this Court to take judicial notice of the LFBC is simply wrong and, as such, her Motion for Sanctions should be DENIED.