BOTG Boots on the ground Taitz Immigration Folly 8-27-2014


230 posts in this topic

Posted

I want to start after the witnesses since that is the result of everything which went before.Orly asked to have her witnesses testify by phone.Hu ( defence): There is a motion to quash which needs to be decided first.Judge declined phone witnesses.Judge: Where is Flores codified?Hu: Nowhere. (Tt: Neither Congress nor any administration are willing to pay the political price for codifying Flores)Judge: Exhibit 1 applies to D.A.C.A.Hu: This is not D.A.C.A.Judge: Does D.A.C.A. apply to Dreamers.Hu: Not all. Dreamers are trying to get The Dream Act passed but it has not passed.Orly: D.A.C.A. is a "magnet". It has been suggested that the surge was the result of D.A.C.A. (Tt: She wants ruling on D.A.C.A.'s constitutionality)Judge: We are not going there but Orly is right on magnet.Kisor (defence): Discusses efforts to educate in Mexico and South America on the fact that there is no Dream Act. Discusses interview process of children and families and determines that there are a variety of reasons for their crossing but concedes that it is a "reasonable assumption" that many come because of D.A.C.A. and Dream Act.Judge: Denies T.R.O. an basis of lack of likelihood of suceed on merits based on the pleading with Orly as plaintiff. (Tt: He could have added "withou prejudice" and stopped right there but he wants to force Border Patrol to shoot as persons approach the middle of the river or get near the border and for I.C.E. and O.R.R. to hold everyone in work camps until they can afford to get back home)Judge went into details about what he wants from Orly but I'll refrain from mentioning those items until after the 9-12 deadline.Talks brought up her witnesses again.Judge: Nothing B.P. can saw will cure her complaint.Orly: I need pro hac vice.Judge: Will not consider class certification until he knows she has standing. No pro hac vice. She should consider filing in California since she is licenced there and her witnesses are there.Orly: Again asks for pro hac vice.Judge: No reason she cannot depose witnesses in CA.Hu: Brings up motion to quash. Granted. Asks for protective order preventing release of sensitive info by union group.Judge: Deposition must have bearing to prove Orly's standing. No depositions until after 10-15 and then only with permission. He assumed a motion to dismiss would be filed and he explained to Orly that she doesn't need supporting evidence since MTD must assume Orly's pleadings are accurate.Court dismissed.

Assuming accuracy (which I do) not as bad as I was thinking but it seems Judge Hanen is being just a little too helpful as a judge, to put it mildly.

 

OTOH, depositions of Orly to prove her standing would be great....  She also probably doesn't get that discovery goes both ways, and in this case those could be very "revealing".  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

From the Taitz v. Johnson thread

 

TexasFilly: "We all know she started this bs with Judge Carter , has been continually admonished (but never sanctioned) and so she keeps acting in a highly unethical manner. Maybe Hanen will transfer the case to Carter. He deserves it."

 

According to TT's report...sound like the Texas Judge thinks that's a good idea too!  =))

 

Orly: I need pro hac vice.Judge: Will not consider class certification until he knows she has standing. No pro hac vice. She should consider filing in California since she is licenced there and her witnesses are there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hats off to Tom for a terrific job on a horrendous assignment.  The Boss will be most pleased.  Thank you.. .will listen tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I.m sorry if anyone was under the impression that the earlier post was my full written report.

 

Back to the beginning.

 

Courtroom was opened and Orly was already seated alone at left hand council table which was furthest from the jury box. I was given front row center on left side. Rudy, Chris, and four other FMs sat outside me. I moved to third (back) row center right to ensure I could observe Orly unobstructed and others in courtroom

 

Emma Perez-Trevino was front row center right. I asked her whom she saw about permission. She said to contact the case manager. (I have called her and am awaiting her return call.)

 

The defence team entered with those I will detail and two additional B.P. Captains. One was a public affairs officer. (I called him and will get more from him via e-mail next week.)

 

They sat at right hand table in front of witness stand and next to the jury box.

 

There were not enough chairs on the other side but enough chairs were there for seven on that side. It appears that someone had arraigned the chairs prior to the public's admission. The defence team appeared to come from an anteroom between the courtroom and the public waiting area.

 

They were, counter-clockwise from center front. Hu, Oaks, assistant to council, I.C.E agent who left at recess (I saw her badge in her purse as  she entered), Brooks, Fiero, and Kisor.

 

Hu acting as lead in the courtroom.

2 Star Chief Border Patrol agent for Rio Grand Valley Sector Kevin Oaks.

T. Brooks was Supervisor for the Rio Grand Valley and Corpus Cristi Region of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

A. Fiero was Supervisor for I.C.E.

Kisor is the Attorney of Record.

 

All rise!

 

Judge Kanen announced the case and began by stating that the hearing was to hear the temporary injuction request before appologizing for being "overly aggressive" in his order to the defence. He reminded Orly that she is a lawyer and will be treated as such. I believe he went beyond that by questioning the witnesses for her after sustaining defense objections to her cross examinations of witnesses.

 

Next he brought up the Cases and Controversy Clause. He then stated that he was not there to resolve the immegration crisis. That is a political question and border security issue.

 

At the end he stated that his questions and comments were part of exploring Orly's likelihood of success but I believe that he  went way beyond that. He knew from Orly's POS pleading, which he admitted he couldn't make heads or tails out of, that nothing brought up at the hearing could cure her initial filing.

 

Shorly after that he declared that courts don't set policy. He sure acted like he wanted too.

 

Next he declared that this was "not a forum to resolve political questions".

 

He then admonished Orly that no one was to call his chambers. No ex-parte communications. Only the case manager was permitted to call him.

 

Next he admonished Orly about 27 pages which he did not receive. He had only received a 3 page submission.

 

Orly claimed that she had filled the full submission.

 

He told her that she had too send everything to the opposition.

 

Orly repeated herself.

 

This was about Orly's witnesses and the fact that Orly had lied about having friendly witnesses which had agreed to testify.

 

I now believe that the Judge had signed off on the subpoenas before receiving the supporting document. He was under the impression that the defence did not oppose the issuance of subpoenas.

 

The standing discussion will be in the next part. I'm on page 5 of my notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is great, Tom - looking forward to the rest as it comes along.

 

Just a clarification on the subpoenas.  Here's the Judge discussing the 27 pages of missing material.

 

Next he admonished Orly about 27 pages which he did not receive. He had only received a 3 page submission.

 

Did it appear to you that the Judge thought the 27 pages he didn't receive contained the supporting documentation you mention here?

 

I now believe that the Judge had signed off on the subpoenas before receiving the supporting document.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am still curious about what Judge Hanen said about the OSC he had issued. I think TT quoted him as saying it was "too harsh" or something like that. IMO that would be an unusual admission for a judge to make from the bench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Judge Hanen denied government’s motion to quash subpoena for one of key witnesses. Several border patrol agents are willing to travel to TX and testify in court about the government trafficking illegals with infectious diseases and placing the gag order on officers, preventing them to speak out about it and about an armed incursion into the US from Mexico through tunnels dug under the border

Posted on | August 28, 2014 | No Comments

U.S. District Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

[font="arial, helvetica;font-size:medium;"]Notice of Electronic Filing[/font]

The following transaction was entered on 8/28/2014 at 2:26 PM CDT and filed on 8/28/2014

 

Case Name: Taitz v. Johnson et al Case Number: 1:14-cv-00119 Filer:   Document Number: 33    

Docket Text:
[color=rgb(0,0,204);font-family:arial, helvetica;font-size:medium;]ORDER denying as moot [31] Motion to Quash. The Parties should attempt to reach an agreement on the items subject to the subpoenas duces tecum. The Court will resolve any unresolved issues regarding the subpoenas by telephone conference.(Signed by Judge Andrew S. Hanen) Parties notified.(jtabares, 1[/color]

 

[color=rgb(0,0,204);font-family:arial, helvetica;font-size:medium;]That isn't of course a denial. He seems to be saying that the subpoenas are a piece of shit, and he wants the parties to fight out what happens next. Is that how you read it, TT?[/color]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The subpoenas are moot because they are for a hearing that is now over.  If Taitz wants to subpoena for the next hearing, "the parties should attempt to reach an agreement".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted


.... Judge: Deposition must have bearing to prove Orly's standing. No depositions until after 10-15 and then only with permission. He assumed a motion to dismiss would be filed and he explained to Orly that she doesn't need supporting evidence since [color=#800000;]MTD must assume Orly's pleadings are accurate.[/color]

Court dismissed.

 

=))

 

Judge, you aint seen not'in yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In OrlyLawTM these were mere suggestions that Taitz could follow or not at her discretion. And it's going to be or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is great, Tom - looking forward to the rest as it comes along. Just a clarification on the subpoenas.  Here's the Judge discussing the 27 pages of missing material. Did it appear to you that the Judge thought the 27 pages he didn't receive contained the supporting documentation you mention here?

That was my take on it. I would guess that Lena failed to post the items in the proper way usere PACER and that the Judge received the three pages without the 27 pages of attachments. Can someone copy over the docket line.

H/T to AnitaMaria... :-bd 2014-08-25 ECF 27, - Taitz v Johnson - Motion to Issue Emergency Subpoenas Tried to post it at Jack's but Scribd is throwing one of its fits at present.  :madz2:

This reference doesn't mention the attachments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am still curious about what Judge Hanen said about the OSC he had issued. I think TT quoted him as saying it was "too harsh" or something like that. IMO that would be an unusual admission for a judge to make from the bench.

Judge Hanen said very little according to my notes. I only wrote down "overly aggressive".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Judge Hanen said very little according to my notes. I only wrote down "overly aggressive".

Weird, this will be interesting reading when the transcript comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Motion to Quash. The Parties should attempt to reach an agreement on the items subject to the subpoenas duces tecum. The Court will resolve any unresolved issues regarding the subpoenas by telephone conference.(Signed by Judge Andrew S. Hanen) Parties notified.(jtabares, 1)

[color=#0000cc;][font="arial;"]That isn't of course a denial. He seems to be saying that the subpoenas are a piece of shit, and he wants the parties to fight out what happens next. Is that how you read it, TT?[/color][/font]

Judge Hanen granted the Motion to Quash during the hearing after Orly's third (at least) request for pro hac vice. That might not have made the docket entry so he had it added as denied as moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That was my take on it. I would guess that Lena failed to post the items in the proper way usere PACER and that the Judge received the three pages without the 27 pages of attachments. Can someone copy over the docket line. This reference doesn't mention the attachments.

Taitz does not have permission to file electronically in this case. Whatever she submitted was in hard copy. I'm sure she screwed something up, but it wasn't the PACER entry. That motion had several attachments that I posted on scribd, links here, http://thefogbow.com/forum/topic/7116-taitz-v-johnson-sd-texas-taitzs-immigration-folly/?p=567613

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Judge: Deposition must have bearing to prove Orly's standing. No depositions until after 10-15 and then only with permission. He assumed a motion to dismiss would be filed and he explained to Orly that she doesn't need supporting evidence since MTD must assume Orly's pleadings are accurate. 

Whoa, did this judge just give Orly an open invitation to start birthering in his court?  -xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Taitz screwed up a filing, AnitaMaria? Say it isn't so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Tell me something new

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Part three: Standing argumentsHu for the defence began with the three prongs and that Orly fails on all three.Next he added Administrative Claim Act and that Orly failed to exhaust administrative process. Mentioned Prudential Standing. Orly is challenging proper operation of government. Judge is pissed that he can't do anything with this case if the defence is correct. Due to his demeanor I noted "Orly wins".Judge: If there were an Ebola patient in custody, are you saying that I can't take any action until someone else is infected and only then after the government fails to act after 180 days.The judge is trying a hypothetical case because he wants to order B.P., O.R.R., and I.CE. to solve the immigration issue by his methods.Judge: Why does a plaintiff need a waiver of sovereign immunity.Judge: Shocked that government can infect anyone.Still on hypothetical program infection Americans.Hu: That is not this case.Judge: "I can't stop this".Hu: Government will not cede standing.Orly's turn. She tries to cite cases where a plaintiff was allowed standing contrary to the three prongs. She never raised Administrative Procedures Act.Orly starts with Clapper case even though SCOTUS eventually held that the plaintiff their lacked standing.Orly: Taxpayer has standing since government is wasting money moving immigrants around the country.Judge Hanen starts in with another hypothetical about a woman who works in government supported facility where immigrant children are shipped to. Asks defence whether she could get standing in the event that she got sick.Hu: It could be a tort claim if she were an independent contractor. "Redressability is a political question".Hu : Remedy would involve a waiver of sovereign immunity. That doesn't apply here.Judge to Orly: Do you feel that you personally have taxpayer standing.Orly: There are hundreds of cases where the government was sued over immigration law. Judge Lambert ruled that the Orchid Grower's Association had standing to get a quarantine of foreign orchids. Orly (rambling): Lambert is in Texas now as a Senior Judge. Plaintiff showed imminent damage because of competition potential contamination.Hu: According to the Administrative Procedures Act there must be a waiver.Orly: Waiver not required.Judge Hanen challenged the rule of the APA.Orly: Fiollo v. Bell givers her standing in her mind because Fiolla had standing. She argued something about equal protection of her dental office. (Tt: I'm sure that will help since SCOTUS ruled that "(a)t the outset, it is important to underscore the limited scope of judicial inquiry into immigration legislation. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that "over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over" the admission of aliens")Orly: "I see 30 transported patients per day". "I am a DentiCal provider. The government refers patients to her. The foster care system is full of immigrants and they get DentiCal because Brown is a liberal Democrat who likes open borders.Orly: I can sue in civil RICO! The Administration is employing testers who should be quarantined. (Tt: I'm not sure whether she wants the examiners quarantined or that they determine who should be quarantined)Orly: Border Patrol agents have reported that they know of immigrants with open sores from scabies. The officers want to testify but didn't get approval until after she had left to get to Brawnsville. She enters the union's press release into evidence.Hu: We are screening detained individuals when they come into DBP custody. TB cases would be treated and quarantined.Orly: There was rabies infected individual. Government treated the individual but others were released without testing. She entered a press report into evidence as a fact.(Tt: Could someone check PACER and see if her zibits have been added. They had not as of 10:00 AM)My next note says "she can bring her medical malpractice to the court". I have no clue but I hope that is what she said.Orly: Her witnesses are under a "gag order".Orly: I provide work daily because children in foster care use DentiCal, which is federal grant. I treat many illegals because I speak so many languages. I treat Africans, Middle Easteners.She treated several hundred this year alone. (I hope my plug into Rudy and Chris' ears pays dividends) extractions, root canalls, and fillings. Her assistant got sick. She got sick. (Tt: There were no supporting documents. I guess her and her assistants doctor doesn't issue press releases).Orly: Blood and saliva become airborne. (Tt: She assumes all of her DentiCal patients are undocumented aliens)(Tt: I don't have a note but I believe that the Judge had stepped in there and said her pleading was incomprehensible and he could not find a cause of action within it.)Orly: Cites Google v. Android to support fact that a plaintiff can sue without a cause of action. I will file complaint once injunction is granted.She returns to her prepared ramblings. "So um". Orly: Abrest v. Reagan ). The court found that they had standing. Isikoff, D.C Circuit (1974) 501 F2D 760 - 61. (Tt: I could be wrong on those since I can't find the cases) "Someone who wants to hire illegals has standing".Orly: 1996 Federal immigration reform. "Mariel boatlift burdened economy".Hu: She didn't plead these.Judge: Could you refuse to treat immigrants?Orly: Then I would have standing because of economic damages.(Tt: Wouldn't she have economic damages once all the immigrants were quarantined?)Orly: Rambles on with three more cases I can't find.Judge: "STOP THERE!" Hu: The cases cited were challenges to policy proposals and have no bearing on this. Some were dismissed for lack of prudential standing.Orly: I want my pro hac vice!Judge: "That would be putting the cart before the horse".Next up will be the first witness, I'm at page 17 of my notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Go Tom GO!!!  :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

 

Thanks so much for the updates!  Great job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Would the DoJ have the right to subpoena the records of Taitz's dental office for the past six months? I'd like to see that 30 patient a day lie outed.  If anything she averages three patients a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Her dental records are privileged, court could review in camera and give defendants some information, but the court has to respect the patients privacy.  Not sure how relevant the records would be other than to prove she is a liar, and as a party that is relevant.  Just the number of patients would be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Is that your entire report? Sorry, but it seems to me that a lot had to have happened before that.  Not all of us can listen to RC's program.  Can you provide what happened from the beginning? 

 

[-X

 

When someone is doing you a favour, you thank them for their efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Would the DoJ have the right to subpoena the records of Taitz's dental office for the past six months? I'd like to see that 30 patient a day lie outed. If anything she averages three patients a day.

What about obtaining her DentiCal billing records?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[-XWhen someone is doing you a favour, you thank them for their efforts.

I promised to deliver a product which community members contributed towards. I will start a thread later asking for evaluation and suggestions since I want to not only return here but travel to other hearings where the community wishes me to attend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.