You sure do when you are not acting as an attorney. Taitz is a petitioner, in pro se. She has no right to file an unsigned petition for any other party.

:twisted: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=35600#comments

Quote:

Freda B. Tepper
April 14th, 2012 @ 6:27 am

A masterpiece. You’ve truly outdone yourself this time.

Don’t forget each side gets discovery. Begley and Tepper can’t wait to depose you.


orly taitz
April 14th, 2012 @ 7:42 am

be my guest Mr. Tepper
I have nothing to hide. Besides, there is absolutely nothing that is relevant to elections fraud committed by Obama, that you can ask me. If you decided to go into fishing expeditions about my granny’s date of birth, or something like this, it will be disallowed as harassment.
You are the one, who has something to fear. More so your financier. Please, send him my regards and check, when is he available for depositions, unless he is willing to settle the case and look for another puppet

From her RICO motion:

Yes, but this is only because of the moles whom we have positioned as clerks.

I love the way that counsel points out the 9, 11, 10 thing with the liberal use of (sic). That is a lawyer's favorite tool for pointing out to the Court that the pleadings are fucked up, and "hey we are just responding to the bullshit that was filed".

Hmmm, seems to be missing something.

Very interesting Doe defendant:



Further affiant sayeth naught.

She is so happy now that the "parties go into discovery". Yup, that will go well. She is the petitioner and the defendants are entitled to take discovery from her regarding her "facts". Including her production of the documents illegally obtained by Hollister and Jordan. Then there is a motion to examine her regarding her barratry. My wild guess for number#1 on the list? Orly Taitz herself.

What a moron.

Thanks for the answer and this video. I can only imagine Orly being deposed. If she is deposed, I hope the other folks in the room bring some ear protection because the pitch of her voice gets higher and higher the more upset she is. I suspect that if Orly was deposed, she would be very, very upset.

Signature of co-plaintiff Leah Lax on the First Amended Complaint in MS
Posted on | April 14, 2012 | No Comments

MS signature of Leah Lax

From her RICO motion:


Obama claimed that he suffered from Taitz? That's gotta hurt...

As Americans, we expect certain liberties and rights that were defined by by our forefathers in documents like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. "We the people" expect that these fundamental rights will always be protected. However, in the current Democratic Presidential Primary, this has not been the case. We believe The Democratic National Committee (DNC) made a grave error by depriving American voters of their choice of Hillary Clinton as Democratic nominee. Senator Clinton, by all accounts, except caucuses, won the Primary Election and, therefore, should be the 2008 Democratic Nominee. That didn't happen, due largely to illegitimate and illegal acts. We have interviews of many accounts from caucus states recounting threats, intimidation, lies, stolen documents, falsified documents, busing in voters in exchange for paying for "dinners," etc. There are at least 2000 complaints, in Texas alone, of irregularities directed towards the Obama Campaign, that have lead to a very fractured and broken Democratic Party.

Is she actually allowed to use a California subpoena in Mississipi?

Is she actually allowed to use a California subpoena in Mississipi?

Orly's got a checkmate.



Nice proof that one of her co-plaintiffs signed her amended complaint, and that all the others didn't.

23-15.963. EXCLUSIVE PROCEDURES FOR CONTESTING
QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATE FOR GENERAL ELECTION;
EXCEPTIONS.
(1) Any person desiring to contest the qualifications of another person who has
qualified pursuant to the provisions of Section 23-15-359, Mississippi Code of
1972, as a candidate for any office elected at a general election, shall file a petition
specifically setting forth the grounds of the challenge not later than thirty-one (31)
days after the date of the first primary election set forth in Section 23-15-191,
Mississippi Code of 1972. Such petition shall be filed with the same body with
whom the candidate in question qualified pursuant to Section 23-15-359,
Mississippi Code of 1972.
(2) Within ten (10) days of receipt of the petition described above, the appropriate
election officials shall meet and rule upon the petition. At least two (2) days before
the hearing to consider the petition, the appropriate election officials shall give
Taitz et al v Democratic Party of MS, Secretary of State of MSnotice to both the petitioner and the contested candidate ofthe time and place of
the hearing on the petition. Each party shall be given an opportunity to be heard at
such meeting and present evidence in support ofhis position.
(3) If the appropriate election officials fail to rule upon the petition within the time
required above, such inaction shall be interpreted as a denial of the request for
reliefcontained in the petition.
MISSTSSPPT ELECTTONS CODE 23-t5-961, ELECTIONS CIIALLENGE
(5) upon the filing of the petition and bond, the circuit clerk shall immediately, by
registered letter or by telegraph or by telephone, or personally, notifi, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, or in his absence, or disability, some other judge of
the Supreme court, who shall forthwith designate and notifu from the list provided
in Section 23-15-951 a circuit judge or chancellor of a district other than that
which embraces the district, sub district, county or any ofthe counties, involved in
the contest or complaint, to proceed to the county in which the contest or complaint
has been filed to hear and determine the contest or complaint. It shall be the
official duty of the circuit judge or chancellor to proceed to the discharge of the
designated duty at the earliest possible date to be fixed by the judge or chancellor
and of which the contestant and contestee shall have reasonable notice. The
contestant and contestee are to be served in a reasonable mtrnner as the judge or
Taitz et aI v Democratic Party of MS, Secretary of State of MS l0chancellor may direct, in response to which notice the contestee shall promptly file
his answer, and also his cross-complaint if he has a cross-complaint. The hearing
before the circuit court shall be de novo. The matter shall be tried to the circuit
judge, without a
jury. After hearing the evidence, the circuit judge shall determine
whether the candidate whose qualifications have been challenged is legally
qualified to have his name placed upon the ballot in question. The circuit judge
may, upon disqualification of any such candidate, order that such candidate shall
bear the court costs ofthe proceedings.
(6) Within three (3) days after judgment is rendered by the circuit court, the
contestant or contestee, or both, may file an appeal in the Supreme Court upon
election contest
2) Within ten (10) days of receipt of the petition described above, the appropriate
executive committee shall meet and rule upon the petition. At least two (2) days
before the hearing to consider the petition, the appropriate executive committee
shall give notice to both the petitioner and the contested candidate ofthe time and
place ofthe hearing on the petition. Each parry shall be given an opportunity to be
heard at such meeting and present evidence in support ofhis position.
(3) If the appropriate executive committee fails to rule upon the petition within the
time required above, such inaction shall be interpreted as a denial ofthe request for
reliefcontained in the petition.
Taitz et al v Democratic Party of MS, Secretary of State of MS ll(a) Any party aggrieved by the action or inaction of the appropriate executive
committee may file a petition for judicial review to the circuit court of the county
in which the executive committee whose decision is being reviewed sits. Such
petition must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days after the date the petition was
originally filed with the appropriate executive committee

Orly's got a checkmate.



Nice proof that one of her co-plaintiffs signed her amended complaint, and that all the others didn't.

As everyone here has probably surmised, Orly's subpoena is not enforceable and is, like previously mentioned above, just as good as a matchbook as far as requiring Bettina Viviano to appear.

California law is not dissimilar from federal law and many other states with respect to the issuance of subpoenas. An attorney in a California case may issue a subpoena in that case, but pro se parties have to have the subpoenas issued by the court. Problems - the case is not a California case and Orly is not an attorney in the Mississippi case [which really makes no difference as the case is not a California case anyway].

Anyone want to hazard a guess on whether or not Orly will give notice of the subpoena/deposition to the other parties [anyone want to hazard a guess whether or not Orly knows she is suppose to give such notice]?

Anyone want to hazard a guess on whether or not Orly will give notice of the subpoena/deposition to the other parties?

HOWEVER ...

Questions, I still haz some. Remember during the Fake Grand Jury phase, we had a couple discussions about a crime called "abuse of process"? And remember how we finally reached a consensus that serving the fake "resentments" on various people wasn't an abuse of process, but if they ever started serving arrest warrants or subpoenas, it might be a violation, depending on the laws of any particular state?

Now here we have a knowing abuse of process, IMHO. She knows from her adventures in Hawaii and Georgia that she can't validly subpoena Ms. Viviano with that subpoena. She's faking the authority of the courts of California to compel Viviano's appearance at Orly's office for the deposition. If Ms. Viviano doesn't check with an attorney, she may be fooled into showing up for the deposition. All without notice to opposing counsel.

She's also trying to use fake documents without any legal authority in order to compel witnesses in the Mississippi case. So if there are abuse of process laws in either California OR Mississippi ...

As everyone here has probably surmised, Orly's subpoena is not enforceable and is, like previously mentioned above, just as good as a matchbook as far as requiring Bettina Viviano to appear.

California law is not dissimilar from federal law and many other states with respect to the issuance of subpoenas. An attorney in a California case may issue a subpoena in that case,but pro se parties have to have the subpoenas issued by the court. Problems - the case is not a California case and Orly is not an attorney in the Mississippi case [which really makes no difference as the case is not a California case anyway].

Anyone want to hazard a guess on whether or not Orly will give notice of the subpoena/deposition to the other parties [anyone want to hazard a guess whether or not Orly knows she is suppose to give such notice]?