Special Show Monday November 5th

Reality Check logoReality Check Radio will air a special election eve show on Monday night at 9 PM EST/6 PM PST. My guests will be California attorneys Jay Ritt and Scott Tepper and Mississippi attorney Sam Begley.

Mr. Begley and Mr. Tepper will report on the outcome of a telephonic hearing in the Taitz, et al v Mississippi Democrat [sic] Party Executive Committee, et. al case in federal court in Jackson, MS that will be held on Monday morning.

Jay Ritt is the attorney who represented Occidental College at a hearing held in Orange County last Thursday to oppose a motion to enforce a subpoena filed by Orly Taitz in her case in California Superior Court. Mr. Ritt was not only able to get the subpoena quashed but also convinced Judge Charles Margines to access sanctions in the amount of $4000 against Taitz for her vexatious actions.

Join us for a fun show: Reality Check Radio 11-05-2012 Down Goes Taitz!

About these ads
This entry was posted in Birther Cases, Orly Taitz, RC Radio and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Special Show Monday November 5th

  1. SueDB says:

    An absolutely delightful, informative, and generally SPOT ON.

    Love the show – keep up the fire.

  2. Thanks. Too bad Sam Begley could not make it but I hope he can make it on November 16th. I am probably will schedule a special show that night despite that being a Friday.

  3. John says:

    I listened to the program. These lawyers are sadistic evil beings….people of pure evil.

  4. John says:

    Don’t both listening to evil beings. Here is the real low down from Orly Taitz. Taitz is dealing with creatures of pure evil:

    here were 6 attorneys against me on the call: 2 for Fuddy and Onaka, 2 for Dem party, Obama, Pelosi and Astrue and 2 for the Sec of State
    Originally judge Wingate stated that I can subpoena witnesses to this hearing, but Tepper stated that he wants to depose the witnesses and he will not have enough tme. So November 16 hearing will be without witnesses.
    Fuddy and Onaka are claiming lack of personal jurisdiction over them.
    Dem party, Obama, Pelosi and Astrue already filed an answer, they do not claim lack of jurisdiction, but they claim that there is not enough evidence pled against them to sustain the case and they want to dismiss.
    One thing is different about this case, is that this is the only case, where Obama’s alleged birth certificate was entered into evidence by the defence and Scott J Tepper sought to have a judicial notice that it is valid and that Obama was born in HI and that he is natural born.
    I filed an opposition and a motion for sanctions. Judicial notice is filed on something that is not subject to disagreement, to dispute. I was saying that when Tepper filed it, he had evidence that it is a forgery, he had a press conference from Arpaio, multiple affidavits.
    Tepper responded that when they filed it in May of this year they had no reason to believe that it is a forgery. He also sent a letter to HI, to dirctor Loretta Fuddy asking authentication. He attached an image to this letter and a copy of Obama’s BC. (Henry Wayland Blake, PhD sent me an affidavit, saying that it is an altered image, that they doctored the original BC to make it look more genuine. They flattened it to have one layer, as I submitted pres conference from Arpaio and Zullo and others, saying that multiple layers, particularly a separate layer with the stamp of the registrar is a sign of forgery. ) Fuddy did not respond. Onaka responded in a carfully crafted letter stating that
    a. there is a document on file
    b information in this copy correpondents to the information on file
    (which of course is absolutely nothing)
    So, I am demanding discovery on this issue and sanctions, saying that this is evidence of falsification upon falsification. I told the judge today that this is likeWatergate: the worst thing was cover up. Here we have evidence of cover up: they refuse to produce originals and there is futher obstruction of justice and falsification to make it look more genuine, cover the initial evidence of forgery.
    Tepper attacked me, called me names right and left, said that he will not have time to depose witnesses, so the judge scheduled a hearing on the motions to dismiss and he said that after November 16, if he does not grant their motion to dismiss on the pleading we can schedule other motion hearings and discovery.
    I do need help with paperwork, there are 6 attorneys, a lot of work. One thing is clear, more cover up is being done, more evidence of falsification of records

  5. John says:

    Scott Tepper better watch out. If he tries to pursue his sadistic crusade against the American people (Orly; she represents the American People), you bet he will be harrassed by many, many persons out there. You remember, that Foggy got a little taste of it. I am sure Scott Tepper will receive a similar if not more respectable treatment.

  6. JY1977

    Are you making a threat? I would be very glad to report your IP address and this post to the authorities if you are.

    Orly doesn’t represent the American people. Orly has been on a one person campaign to smear a great leader based on nonsense. The American people represented themselves yesterday the way we do it in a civilized society. They spoke and spoke very clearly. Orly may soon learn once again that there are consequences for trying to use the courts for political purposes.

  7. John says:

    Sorry RC, you lie. I did not make a threat. I merely suggested that if Scott Tepper tries to go after Orly, I sure many many Orly supporters will go after Scott Tepper as well. You remember poor Foggy got smacked a bit. Probably Scott Tepper will as well.

  8. John says:

    “The American people represented themselves yesterday the way we do it in a civilized society. They spoke and spoke very clearly.”

    Actually, in theory Mitt Romney can still win. However, I highly doubt it would happen but it could. I will explain why:

    Obama has won the election. Next the electors will cast their vote. After that, In January, the Joint Session of Congress meets to certify the votes and declare Obama the winner. Obama is then sworn in shortly after.

    During the Joint Session of Congress, all Congressmen and Senators have a little known covetted power.

    One Senator and one Congressman has the power to file a written objection on each state’s vote or the vote as a whole. The objection can be ANY ISSUE regarding the candidate, in this Barack Obama. Congress MUST debate the objection. They CANNOT IGNORE the Objection.

    In this case, any Senator or Congress could object based on Sheriff Joe’s investigation. Several in Congress have suggested impeachment on Obama and could object on those issues. And still some in Congress could object based on what happen in Bengzai.

    Will it happen? I seriously doubt it. I don’t think you will find a Senator or Congressman who would go against the will of the people.

    Orly Taitz had hoped to become Senator so she could utilize this incredible and covetted power, but unfortunately she was wasted in the primary.

    Below is the relevant law:

    “During the Joint Session, Members of Congress may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately in a session which cannot last more than two hours with each Member speaking for no more than five minutes. After each house votes on whether or not to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If they agree to the objection, the votes in question are not counted. If either chamber does not agree with the objection, the votes are counted.”

  9. John/jy

    What you posted may very well be considered as a threat towards Mr. Tepper. I have made Mr. Tepper aware of your comment and will leave it up to him to take any action he deems appropriate.

  10. John

    How about we place a bet of $1000 that President Obama is not decertified by Congress?

  11. John says:

    Rc, are you and Scott Tepper going to start behaving like Orly? What hypocrites you are. How many threats has Orly reported that she has received. I can count thousands and thousands of posts where she has tried to report threats made against her. If those threats were to be taken seriously, you are looking at literally thousands and thousands of individuals sanctioned. Try to set an example RC and Mr. Tepper…don’t be an Orly.

  12. RoadScholar says:

    I doubt even 1 in 100 threats Orly has complained about ever happened. She’s the biggest liar on the face of the planet, in term of outright lies per day. Worse even that Mitt Rmoney.

    She has always been vile anti-American scum, and now she’s irrelevant vile Anti-American scum.

    Like you.

  13. Intrepid Reporter/Observer says:

    [RC: I held this in moderation after discussion with Intrepid Reporter/Observer out of caution as to not help Orly but now that she has replied to Judge Reid it appears no longer necessary to do that.]

    More sanctions trouble for Orly?

    Guess who wasn’t supposed to post that full audio of the October 22nd hearing in IN all over the internet nor forward it to the federal court in MS, in violation of IN rules?

    Amos Brown raised the issue on his blog and explains that the matter is being investigated. http://praiseindy.com/1648542/exclusive-anti-obama-birthers-suspected-of-illegally-posting-audio-of-indy-court-hearing-on-internet/

    Here are the two rules I was able to find that prohibit broadcast of a court proceeding:

    Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct 2.17: RULE 2.17: Prohibiting Broadcasting of Proceedings

    Except with prior approval of the Indiana Supreme Court, a judge shall prohibit broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom and areas immediately adjacent thereto during sessions of court or recesses between sessions, except that a judge may authorize:

    (1) the use of electronic or photographic means for the presentation of evidence, for the perpetuation of a record, or for other purposes of judicial administration;

    (2) the broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing of investitive, ceremonial, or naturalization proceedings;

    (3) the photographic or electronic recording and reproduction of appropriate court proceedings under the following conditions:

    (a) the means of recording will not distract participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings;

    (b) the parties have consented, and the consent to being depicted or recorded has been obtained from each witness appearing in the recording and reproduction;

    (c) the reproduction will not be exhibited until after the proceeding has been concluded and all direct appeals have been exhausted; and

    (d) the reproduction will be exhibited only for instructional purposes in educational institutions.

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/jud_conduct/index.html#_Toc281379854

    And second, the Indiana Public Access to Court Records Handbook:

    In situations where the requested record results in provision of an audio
    and/or audiovisual copy of a court proceeding, the judge should issue an
    order specifically limiting its use and barring the recipient from
    broadcasting the received record in any manner.

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/files/pubs-accesshandbook.pdf (p. 49-50)

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s