We know that many complaints have been filed with the State Bar against Orly Taitz, and that there is an active, on going investigation as a result of at least one of those complaints. I have decided to start this separate thread because of something I learned tonight, which may be of an order of magnitude more significant than anything we have seen before. It certainly raised my eyebrows when I read it.

Realist has obtained the reporter's transcript for the hearing on July 13, 2009 before Judge Carter.

At the beginning of the hearing Taitz introduces herself and, when asked by the Judge, the identity of the person who's with her at the plaintiff's table, she replies with the terse: "Law Clerk. Charles Lincoln."

The transcript runs 59 pages. Finally, near the end, Lincoln can no longer restrain himself. He begins to address the court at p. 54. AND TAITZ DOESN'T STOP HIM. Much as he was negotiating with the U.S. Attorney's Office over service of the amended pleading and waiver of the summons, he begins to discuss the details of service and amendment with the Court!

Lincoln participates in the proceedings as if he were Taitz's co-counsel from p. 54 to p. 59 when he "blesses" the court.

Taitz had an obligation to prevent him from participating. (She had a number of other obligations in informing the state bar and her clients he was working with her.) She failed to take adequate steps to prevent him from speaking to the court, and allowed him to do so.

So, I think this is a significant one. And the first one to go here on this DISBARMENT WATCH.

Got a link to the transcript?

Not yet. It's being worked out by others. There may be some legal issues involved in posting a transcript and depriving the court reporter of her ability to make money on the copies, which is her right in California.

Ellie - even if Realist could scan it and upload it to scribd, I would think it would take an inordinate amount of time (I do not know I am guessing), so if he has the time, I sure he would do it, however it would not be a quick and easy process.

Hard to know what to do with your interpretation, "In it Judge Carter doesn't take the case very seriously. He's playing with Taitz and playing with the crowd." without being able to read it.

The key was Lincoln's participation. And Taitz also made a false representation when Judge Carter was trying to figure out why she was filing in his court rather than D.C.:

That gem is at p. 15.

Stern - how much would a copy of the transcript be? I know that they get cheaper once the initial transcribing has been done (where the hard work is) after which it is basically just copying pages. Has the court reporter indicated how much she would charge for a copy? Thanks.

But the best part of all -- at least to this reader's eye -- is the very last exchange of the transcript:




Hollywood writers couldn't have done so well.

Oops

The problem in reproducing -- or "posting" -- the transcript is a California Government Code provision (§ 69954) that makes it illegal to provide it to people who have not paid for it. (I did.) Unless/until it is cleared with the court reporter.

At this point it is illegal to post it. This may not be true of maybe a few extracts, but when you get into 50+ pages you are talking about a court reporter's livelihood.

Maybe SNL would buy a copy. Probably less than paying their writers.

I have to say, I hope it can be released soon -- reading it was an incredible experience. I remember when we used to wonder whether Judge Carter needed to be informed that Orly was a nut job. By the middle of the second page she is off on such an insane rant that there couldn't have been the slightest doubt in anyone's mind. And he let her go on and on, telling her repeatedly that she had all the time in the world...

It's interesting that she's mad for discovery. Every single item that comes up, she thinks of it as something she can use to entitle her to discovery, and some of her theories are batshit insane, like the one about she must be granted a default judgment even though the judge has ruled that the defendant was never served.

Reading this thread makes me laugh all the more that the idiot Ed Hale embraced Orly as the great savior, "Lady Liberty" once again on his "last" episode of "The Lion's Den". I am glad this dirt bag is going to be there on October 5th to watch Orly go down in flames.

Hmm... if it can't be posted online, perhaps it can be read aloud on Land of the Obots. It might make for an interesting & somewhat entertaining program.

can we start a Paypal button to buy a forum copy?

Actually, Realist did pay for the transcript, and I think maybe its a matter that Realist can work out with the court reporter. A transcript obviously can be shared among the people who are essentially on the same team with the purchaser -- that is, a law firm doesn't have to order and pay for multiple copies for however many law clerks and junior associates they may have working on a case. In a typical litigation, there would be one copy paid for per law firm or side -- I did occasionally run into counsel for other parties who asked me to do them a "favor" and let them photocopy the transcript I had obtained of a deposition or proceeding, and that was clearly a big no-no. But whatever copy I had obtained as counsel was freely copied and distributed "in-house" as appropriate to the circumstances.

The difference here is that we aren't a law firm and we don't represent any parties. It would clearly be inappropriate for Realist to post the transcript for public access on Scribd -- but documents can be posted online with only private access. (For example, if the US Attorneys office obtained a copy and then scanned it into their in-house document management system so that the attorneys, investigators and legal secretaries had shared access -- I'm sure that would be o.k.)

So I think the main question is that Realist needs a way to determine who is within the legitimate "zone" of parity to justify shared access, and what precautions he can take to ensure to keep the access under tight control.

To clarify my unduly wordy post above -- the law says:

California Government Code Section 69954


The question is how to define "internal use".

I would assume that Realist might want to come up with a plan and then clear it with the court reporter.

I have some ideas on how to accomplish it technically -- I know that Scribd can be configured to allow online reading but prevent copying or download, so a private-key upload could be protected from further dissemination -- but all of that is up to Realist.

Just to chime in quickly, CB and Stern are correct, provision (d) of the protection clause for the transcript is what is holding up the posting. I have worked it out with the reporter, but I'm waiting on written permission, which should be forthcoming within the next 24-48 hours. I believe we have also designed a method to post it so that even if downloaded it could not be used by parties for exhibits and/or attachment to a transcript.

Also i have ordered and paid for the transcript from the 8th in California and it will arrive in just a couple of days, perhaps as early as sometime tomorrow, as I paid for an expedited copy. It is a different court reporter than the first, so the same things had to be worked out, and have, but I have to wait on the documentation, just as in the first, but this one was easier and I'm hopeful it arrives at the same time as the transcript.

I believe it was sometime in July, or certainly early August that I posted I was going to obtain it, and that I would certainly not turn down any donations (but stopped short of the PayPal button ) and several PJers did chip in. The cost was approximately $400, because as of the time I ordered no one else had, and so I had to pay for the original, much more costly than a copy after the original has been prepared. I say approximately, as I had to send a check to the court reporter in advance, and the last estimate I received was that figure. I will receive the final billing tomorrow and will send the balance due. She did give a small discount for professional courtesy. The 8th transcript is the same situation, but is taken care of.

The folks who chipped in got an "advance" copy with the written understanding they would not post or share all or any portion of it until the permission of waiver from the reporter was received. As mentioned above that is forthcoming.

Patience please. It will only be perhaps a day, perhaps less, and we can all enjoy another inside look at Orly in the courtroom, as well as the DOJ attorneys and Judge Carter.

I had a few questions over the last week or so about the cost and so forth for transcripts, why there's and extra charge, and so forth.

For those who work in the courts (generally termed '"official" court reporters) who are employed by either the state or the feds, transcript income is an important part of their income stream. Depending on the court, that income can be as much as half again their salary, so it's a significant portion of their anticipated income, that's why it's important to protect the copy sales by not allowinng freebies to be disseminated everywhere.

One of the main reasons they are paid extra is because, generally, the only time they have to work on them is nights and weekends, so while it's a duty to prepare them when requested, if paid for, they rarely have time during regular working hours to do so.

In the freelance field, such as I work, we like to have those same protections as the officials have, but we have no real way of enforcing it, except the integrity of the attorneys involved, and they, 99% of the time, adhere to that, for several reasons, not the least of which is they don't want to supply their opposition with free copies. Some freelance reporters (though I'm not one of them) even produce the transcripts on paper than the text can not be copied, which I think it ridiculous, and also does not prevent the electronic copies from being disseminated, but most attorneys will only use the depositions internally for their case.

I hope these last two posts give those unfamiliar with the process a little better idea of how it works. If there's any other questions, i'll be happy to answer them.

Now there is a thought. A one act play with the following characters:

Insane Darth Orly. Played by Allison?
Evil Charlie Lincoln III played by ?
Ace LOTO on the scene reporter played by Wavey Davey
Wise Judge Carter played by ?
USA Attorney West played by ?
Orly-bot nemesis lawyer Gary Kreep played by ?

Methusaleh would like to play Charley. Since Methusaleh is old he can bide his time until page 54.

I would like to play Judge Crater, er Judge Carter.

While we're at it, how 'bout a Paypal button for long distance calling? The AT&T conference call which resulted in the OC Weekly article about Orly cost $304. I'm sure I'm not the only one on the forum to incur such expenses during the course of our investigations.

Have you tried Skype? When there have been problems with it, it seems mostly to have been due to inadequate or incompatible equipment at the user's end, not to anything that Skype has control of. In theory, Skype calls ought to be clear as a bell, even though they are digitized and transmitted in packets with low (not Internet II high-priority) QoS standards.

My firm uses AT&T. Quality control is essential in a law office.

Foggy should definitely be Judge Carter. If my memory is correct, Foggy was a lawyer before Judge Carter during his lawyer days.

Allison must be Orly if Allison can be available. She does an amazing Orly impression. I know Allison is super busy on a case right now.

Mike should play Kreep!!!