I was in the courthouse today on another matter and popped in to observe the 2:30 hearing. I arrived in department C17 with time to spare, only to learn it had been moved 3 floors up. So I entered the courtroom with the hearing already underway at 2:34. At that point, the Hon. Richard Luesebrink was asking when the primary had taken place and whether Taitz had leave to file the challenge. (Note that California Elections Code requires that all election challenges be presented by affidavit to the Presiding Judge. That did not happen here.)
The judge then ordered any potential witnesses to leave the courtroom while things were discussed. Four people exited to the hallway. Those remaining in the courtroom included the OC Register reporter and a woman later identified as Yulia Yun. Yulia is an attractive blonde woman in her late 20's or early 30's who paid close attention to the proceedings, occasionally shaking her head slightly. Both she and Orly Taitz were attired in lady lawyer black.
Judge Luesebrink jumped around a bit but kept coming back to the unnamed, unserved defendants - most notably the California Secretary of State. As for the named defendants, Taitz indicated that they had been named because "they were the ones on the mailer". (While I was in the courtroom, no one seemed to wonder why the California GOP was not named as a party or otherwise notified of this event. I guess I'm the only one wondering about that.)
The judge wanted to know whether the unnamed but notified defendants had an interest in the case. He asked if "hypothetically" the stay was issued, who would the order go to? Taitz answered, "Debra Bowen, the Secretary of State". The judge then pointed out that if he did order the Secretary of State to stay the certification and the SOS replied "tell the judge to pound sand" that the court had no power to hold the SOS in contempt.
Au contraire argues Orly Taitz. Bowen had received notice at Judge Sanders request. Bowen is the "recipient of the order" and would be in contempt if she ignores the order.
To which the judge replies: "Oh really? What is the authority for that?"
There is much stammering as Taitz struggles to claim that Bowen is under the jurisdiction of the court because she lives in California and is serving in a California state office. She must comply with a court order.
The judge asks, "so why didn't you name her?" Taitz then, shockingly, refers to the California Elections Code which says that one candidate suing another over eligibility must name the other candidate as a defendant. (Taitz appears to believe that the statute limited the defendants to be sued to those who were candidates, for something, and appearing on the ballot with her. So Obama is a defendant and so are the Republicans finishing ahead of her. I have no idea who the 100 DOES are. I'm pretty sure that the entire primary ballot for all offices combined had less than 100 candidates.)
The judge also notes that he has not had a lot of time to read all of the documents, but that there was no admissible evidence showing 100s or 1000s of illegal voters. Taitz begins talking about the 22,000 page printout she has and how a witness will explain it all. (She has yet to acquire any familiarity with the concepts of evidence, hearsay, authentication, etc.)
The judge then asks if Taitz understands the two issues that must be shown at an ex parte hearing and receives a rambling response regarding Taitz' troubles with Judge Glass and why she waited until this week and why this has to be done today or "my rights will be extinguished".
This judge returns to asking about notice to named and interested parties, including candidate Emken. When Taitz claims that Emken received notice and a fax of the complaint, the judge says "what complaint"? But here Orly Taitz scores a point, and is able to correctly inform the judge that an affidavit, not a complaint, begins an election challenge. She has filed an affidavit.
In answering questions about service, Taitz begins to launch into the whole "Obama was in contempt in Georgia" thing, but is cut off, with the judge telling her it is hard to read while she is talking.
Again, hypothetically, the judge wonders how long she expects all this to take if he grants the stay. Taitz claims she only needs 45 days, as she already has people ready to testify, including this new guy that will testify about the 22,000 pages of invalid voter registrations she has already acquired. The judge then notes (as he apparently did in the first five minutes while I was in the elevator) that witnesses cannot give oral testimony at an ex parte hearing unless there is five days notice the defendants.
That is deadly to her attempts to perfect her "proof of service" by having Yulia Yun in the courtroom to say "yes, I faxed that", or "it was at 9:32 a.m." Yulia can't testify to anything and neither can anyone else cooling their heels in the hallway.
The judge states that Taitz is pro se but still a lawyer. He asks how long and Taitz says "ten years". The judge points out that she is expected to know the rules, especially for something of this magnitude. Taitz claims, "but there are exceptions for exigent circumstances". The judge notes that every ex parte is about exigent circumstances and all lawyers are expected to follow the rules.
He then rules that the application to stay certification of the vote is denied. There is sighing and then there is Taitz muttering "this was decided before I entered this courtroom". The judge asks her to repeat that and she does. Because she is real smart that way. But this judge, on the bench since 1978, doesn't feel like slapping someone upside the head today. Instead, he says: "Judge Sanders gave you a list of defects in your petition and I happen to agree with her. Independently. Court is adjourned."
Login
Register
FAQ
](./images/smilies/brickwall.gif "brickwall")
