Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz

If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.

The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.
 -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.
 -- Mahatma Gandhi

Summary of the MS hearing by one of the court observers, who is a registered voter in MS and who served as a precinct captain and was involved in fighting elections fraud in MS for some time. This is a highly educated person who knows former state officials and met current state officials on issues of elections fraud

Posted on | November 18, 2012 | 2 Comments

My Summary of Hearing

7:19 PM (3 hours ago)

to me
I am listening to the Realty Check radio show to see if there is anything they said that might jog my memory.

Summary of Nov 16, 2012 Hearing in Jackson, MS Federal Court


The Hearing started at 1 pm and went to just past 6 pm.  There was a 15 and a 10 minute break.

The following appeared:  Mr. Matheny for the Secretary of State,

Mr. Begley and Mr. Tepper for the Democratic Party of MS, Obama, Pelosi and Obama for America.  Mr. Walter Dukes and assistant lawyer for Onaka and Fuddy.

Plaintiffs Taitz and Fedorka.  Plaintiffs Roth and Lax requested to withdraw due to medical reasons by letter.  Mr. Tom MacLeran requested to be excused by letter for medical reasons.  The court ordered the three plaintiffs to provide the court with medical statements because they were all ordered to appear today.


Mr. Duke argued his Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for Relief and Insufficient Process.

Mr. Duke argued that his clients were not served.  There seems to be several ways someone can be served depending on what standard is used.  That the defendants were in two different buildings.  That papers were left at the front desk with someone not authorized to take it.  He stated his clients were immune to RICO charges acting in their official capacity.  He argued how Dr. Taitz was defaming his clients and lawyers.  He argued that there was no evidence to show any RICO charges.  That all of the allegations were just conjecture.  I am not clear what his argument was on failure to state a claim.


Mr. Matheny then argued his Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings.  He argued that the complaints are now moot because we are passed the primary and the general election.  That Mr. Obama’s name cannot be taken off the ballot.  Even if the SoS could nullify the vote, it wouldn’t change anything because Romney won this State.  He argued that there isn’t anyway to stop the SoS from counting the ballots because it is his statutory duty.  He argued that the complaint was filed too late for the primary.  He argued that she filed the complaint too late for the general election.  He also argued that 23-15-963 of the MS code only applies to independent candidates. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/mscode/


After allowing these two attorneys to make their arguments.  The court kind of changed procedure a little.  Dr. Taitz began to present her case but the court stopped her presentation numerous times so as to give each of the two attorneys rebuttal time as Dr. Taitz covered each item.  It is easier for the listener to group all the arguments for and against together so as to decide each point as you go.  It is also a lot easier for the defendants to answer each point as they go instead of having to make sure you don’t forget to rebut a point.  I believe this favored the defendants and hindered the plaintiffs fluid answers to the arguments.


Dr. Taitz argued that the court did have personal jurisdiction because millions of people had been effected by Mr. Obama’s forged birth certificate.  She argued that the defendants availed themselves of the court, so the wider National standard for service of process was used.  She first sent Onaka, Fuddy and the Attorney General of HI the complaint by certified mail without a summons because the case was between circuit court and federal court.  She then served them the complaint and summons by process server.  The process server was not allowed inside and was told to leave the documents at the front desk. He served the Dept. of Health and the AG office.  She pointed out that they are being represented here so they were clearly in receipt of service.  The court requested that Dr. Taitz make a copy of the certified mail receipt and submit it to the court and defendants.  She explained that Onaka and Fuddy are being sued as individuals not in their official capacity and the court granted time to Mr. Dukes to write a new response based on that.  She argued that she is not defaming Mr. Dukes’ clients as she simply stated as fact what they were doing and what they have said.  She began to argue the merits of the case and several objections were launched.  The court defended Dr. Taitz.  He stated that the defendant clearly opened the door to the merits of the case when Mr. Dukes stated that Dr. Taitz’s arguments were only conjecture and opinion.  He basically overruled that objection and allowed Dr. Taitz to argue the merits on the social security number, the selective service record and the birth certificate.  I believe the court took an interest in what she said.  He seemed moved by the explanation of what had been done to these 3 documents.  She argued that for the last 200 years the United States Postal Service has  standardized use of a four digit year on the postmark, except for Mr. Obama’s postmark on his selective service record which only has the last two digits of the year.   She referred to the nine layers in the pdf file  of the birth certificate and the wrong border for the year of the bc form.  She explained that the ssn had not been issued to Mr. Obama and he failed a e-verify check.


Mr. Scott Tepper objected.  He stated that a birth certificate was not a federal identity document.  He called Dr. Taitz’s previous experts buffoons at which time the court stopped him.  He was not going to put up with that and Mr. Tepper had to apologize.   


Dr. Taitz went on to convincingly argue that the court can grant declaratory and injunctive relief.  Dr. Taitz used Mr. Tepper’s own motion to illustrate that the complaint was not too late because the defendants argued that the case was not ripe yet.  They argued that a complaint could not be filed until after the Democratic National Convention (September 6th) when Mr. Obama was nominated.  This is way passed the 30 day deadline after the primary of March 13th to file a complaint. You can’t have it both ways.  The court recessed for 15 minutes to give Dr. Taitz time to find a statute that would give the SoS authority not to certify the election.  No law could be found that states that.  I believe she is currently looking for case law to support this.


The court recessed for 10 minutes.  After the break the court wanted to hear arguments on Mr. Begley and Mr. Tepper’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings.


Mr. Begley and Mr. Tepper argued that the petitions for the primary and general election were not filed on time with the Hinds County circuit court.  They also argued that the case was not ripe when the petition was filed because Obama had not been nominated yet.  They denied that the MS Democratic Party was petitioned for the general election contest first.    They argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing.  They argued HI has verified that Obama was born in HI in their official capacity (but would not verify this information as individuals).  They argued that all of her cases had been dismissed.  I am not clear as to what RICO charges they denied.


The court then questioned Dr. Taitz on the RICO charges.  He questioned her on injuries, predicates, damages, defamation, misprision of felony, obstruction of justice, fraud, forgery and uttering a forgery.  Dr. Taitz then described numerous injuries, damages and defamation.  Here are a few.  Members of the organization, “FOGBOW” harassed and intimidated Dr. Taitz, other plaintiffs, witnesses, clients, businesses etc.  The members include attorneys, law clerks, government officials, judges, media, government administrators, agents, contractors and others who work with the IRS and state bars.  She lost about $500,000 in her dental practice.  Dr. Taitz explained how her tenants were told that their sublease was unsafe because of what Dr. Taitz was doing, this caused her to lose 400,000 in rent.  That they called her insurance company to try to get them to drop her insurance, they destroyed four websites, email accounts and other electronic devices.   Mr. Tepper brought several CA bar complaints against her which were all dismissed and she had to pay an attorney $10,000 to defend that, her car had been tampered with, they called the plaintiffs of this case to threaten them with $50,000 of sanctions for bringing a frivolous case.  They called witnesses and other plaintiffs in other cases and tampered with their cars.   That some courts had stated that the case would be heard on the merits and then suddenly reversed their decision and threw out the cases on technicalities of standing even for a Presidential candidate, Ambassador Alan Keyes.   She stated that she lost clients because of threats.  That Obama for America had illegally raised funds of 2 billion dollars with matching federal dollars from taxpayers.  That they held a convention with the purpose of derailing her run for the CA Secretary of State because if she would win, she would require Obama to produce his bonafides.  That they destroyed Major Cook.  He lost his job.  He was defamed for not wanting to be deployed even though he had deployed multiple times.  His orders were rescinded instead of producing the documents he requested.  Several other military officers were destroyed and lost an enormous amount.  They could not deny standing to these officers and it might begin to effect deployment so they needed to make an example of Dr. Taitz.   So the Judge sanctioned her $20,000 to silence her.  Dr. Taitz’s RICO statement is extensive and astonishing when put all together.  Simply put its been a nightmare. 


In response to Mr. Tepper, she argued that her cases were dismissed for lack of standing and were not adjudicated on the merits.


Members of Fogbow were present in the courtroom.  They audibly laughed and sneered at the arguments.  Members of the Democratic Party were there also.  There were only 3 people who showed up to support Dr. Orly Taitz.  The courtroom was full of Democrats.

They did a internet radio show after the hearing. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rcr/2012/11/17/rc-radio   These people are very nasty.  Mr. Scott Tepper has been literally obsessed with Dr. Taitz, stalking her around the country and in CA, inserting himself into her legal cases.


The second part of the hearing was very meticulous.  The Judge went over everything that had to be covered under RICO.  Dr. Orly Taitz did great.  She was very fluent on the matter and had comprehensive answers to the judges questions.  She knew the subject matter like the back of her hand and destroyed any arguments on RICO.  The court asked her to submit a summary of the RICO defendants and their involvement for his convenience.


2 Responses to “Summary of the MS hearing by one of the court observers, who is a registered voter in MS and who served as a precinct captain and was involved in fighting elections fraud in MS for some time. This is a highly educated person who knows former state officials and met current state officials on issues of elections fraud”

  1. Mission Impossible
    November 19th, 2012 @ 3:29 am

    OMG! Only (3) people show up, to show you support here? That’s disgusting! You are the toughest, legal “gladiator” in America! And reading the account from this person who was in attendance really ticks me off, with what he describes as to how you were treated!
    Fogbow needs to pay for this indiscretion of making a mockery of a court hearing! Orly, please consider the info in the post from Truthseeker6 on your first page, as it relates to what that poster wrote about: this (1/3) of the states (Red) not voting their electoral college votes, so this, then, turns if over to the House, if this is true?? Hang tough, Wonder Woman!

  2. bps
    November 21st, 2012 @ 11:35 pm

    Public officials loose their immunity when they step out of their limited delegated authority by acting outside of what they are allowed to do. They are immune to things they do with good intent but maybe in error, eg. negligence but not when they overtly do something outside of what they are allowed to do (e.g. gross negligence)

Leave a Reply