Unofficial Transcript 22 October 2012 Taitz v Elections Board

7/23/2019 Unofficial Transcript 22 October 2012 Taitz v Elections Board

1/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT

Please note:

The following is an unofficial transcript of a hearing held on 22 October 2012 in

the below referenced case. The transcription was made from an audio recording

posted and made publicly available at Orly Taitzs website

(http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=361097) by a public citizen.

State of Indiana ) In the Marion Superior Court

County of Marion ) Civil Court 14

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, Karl Swihart, )

Edward Kesler, Bob Kern, )

Frank Weyl and Valeria Ripley, )

Plaintiffs )

vs. )

Election Commission, ) Trial Court Case No.

Secretary of State of Indiana, ) 49D-14-1203-MI-012046

Deputy Attorney General Jefferson )

Garn, Assistant Attorney, General )

Kate Shelby, 1310 Radio/WTLC Amos ) Before the Honorable

Born, In his capacity of the Talk Show ) S. K. Reid, Judge

Host of the 1310 Radio/WTLC )

Defendants. )


2/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASESEE NOTEON PAGE 1 2

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASESEE NOTEON PAGE 1

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the Petitioners:

Dr. Orly Taitz

Attorney at Law (INO)

29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste. 100

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Mr. Gregory Black

Attorney at Law

PO Box 845

1648 East Main Street, Ste. A

Indianapolis, IN 46168

On behalf of the Respondents:

Kate Shelby

Jefferson Garn

Kenneth Joel

Office of the Attorney General

Indiana Government Center South - 5th Floor

302 West Washington Street,

Indianapolis, IN 46204


3/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



THE COURT: Give us just a moment.

Alright, we are on the record.

This is in the matter of Dr. Orly Taitz, et al., I won't read all the

individual plaintiffs names into the record, and Election Commission, et al. Cause

Number 49D14-1203-MI-12046.

Before we begin this morning's hearing and we---we are set for

hearings on a number of issues and I'll identify those in a moment. But I want to take

a moment and have each counsel and/or party identify themselves for the record.

We'll begin first, we always do, with the plaintiff.

MR. BLACK: Your Honor, I'm Greg Black. I'm co-counsel and

local attorney for Dr. Taitz.

MS. TAITZ: Alright.

MS. TAITZ: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Orly Taitz and I'm

both one of the plaintiffs and I'm counsel for all of the plaintiffs.

THE COURT: Alright, very good. Good morning, Dr. Taitz.

Do any of the plaintiffs wish to identify themselves for the record?

MS. RIPLEY: Valeria Ripley, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

THE COURT: Alright, Miss Ripley.

MR. KERN: Bob Kern, Indianapolis.

THE COURT: Mr. Kern.

MR. WEYL: Frank Weyl, Muncie, Indiana.

MR. SWIHART: Karl Swihart, Avon, Indiana.

THE COURT: Do I have one more?

MS. TAITZ: He couldn't make it.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?


4/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



MS. TAITZ: He couldn't---. Yes, but he could not make it.

THE COURT: Okay, very good we're finished then.

Alright, let's go next to the defendants.

MR. JOEL: Yes, Your Honor. Kenneth Joel on behalf of all the

defendants from the Attorneys General office.

Mr. Garn: Jefferson Garn from the Attorneys General office

and I'm also a party---named party.

THE COURT: Thank you Mr. Garn.

Is it Mr. Joel?

MR. JOEL: Yes, last name is Joel, J o e l.

THE COURT: J o e l and I think I did that to you last time, Mr.

Joel.

MR. JOEL: Not a problem.

THE COURT: It's the hearing. I apologize.

MR. JOEL: I tend to---. I sometimes don't speak up as loudly

as I should. I will try.

THE COURT: You're doing fine.

Alright. Before I get to identifying the issues the court's going to

address this morning this instruction and order is issued from the bench.

All cell phones, anyone who is sitting in the courtroom with a cell

phone, cell phones must be turned off. Do so immediately. Turn off all cell phones.

Failure to do so will result in your ejection from the courtroom.

Second, and pay particular attention to this, there will be no video

recording in the courtroom. No cameras in the courtroom.

Alright, those two are orders of the court.


5/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Morning Officer.

Alright. This---the following three are the issues the court deems are

set for hearing this morning and this is after a discussion with counsel and the recent

filings. We are going to hear the--- At issue this morning is the plaintiffs request for

Permanent Injunctive Relief, defendants Motion to Dismiss, and the recent filing by

the plaintiff, Motion for Default. Those are the issues we're going to address this

morning.

Are there any additions or corrections? Beginning first with the

plaintiff.

MS. TAITZ: No.

THE COURT: Alright, very good.

MS. TAITZ: Oh, excuse me.

MR. BLACK: Your Honor, I think we also asked for a trial on

declaratory judgment.

THE COURT: Thank you. Yes.

MR. BLACK: Sure. Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. JOEL: Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Joel.

MR. JOEL: Yes, Your Honor, I believe there should be one

additional issue. We filed on Friday a Motion to Vacate today's trial and I can go into

the arguments for that. I think that should be discussed, the Motion to Dismiss and

also the Motion for a Default before anything else happens.

THE COURT: Alright. Yes, I was aware just in the last fifteen

minutes that that motion was filed. Apparently it was filed in the wrong court.

MR. JOEL: It---it very well might have. I got two here and I


6/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



apologize for that. That---that motion actually had the correct cause number on it.

The other one had, the Opposition to their Motion for Default had court 1 and I

suspect my paralegal came over with that one on top and put them both there so I

apologize.

THE COURT: Alright.

MR. JOEL: I have a copy if you like if you don't already have

one.

THE COURT: I don't have a copy. So---

MR. JOEL: Can I approach?

THE COURT: it might be---

MR. JOEL: Pardon.

THE COURT: good if I have copy of the motion.

MR. JOEL: And we already served plaintiffs---


MR. JOEL: on Friday.

THE COURT: Thank you so much.

MR. JOEL: And this is actually the Opposition to Motion to

Default. That's the one that I think got into the wrong court. So I don't know if you

have either or both but just in case.

THE COURT: Both of apparently got in the wrong court.

MR. JOEL: Yeah, you see that one has the right cause number.

I suspect that one was on the top of her list.


MR. JOEL: Sorry about that.

THE COURT: Ms. Taitz, you and Mr. Black, you have copies of


7/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



these motions.

MS. TAITZ: Yes, Your Honor we do, however it was---.

THE COURT: Alright. We're---we're going to address all these.

Okay. The Court has scheduled for two hours. I suggest you budget

your time. I'll roughly allow an hour for each side. So watch your time. You're in

charge of the time.

Alright, it is the plaintiffs---. Well let me, let me pause here for a

moment. The State, the Election Commission has filed a request to vacate the trial.

MR. JOEL: Correct.

THE COURT: And they have challenged through their Motion to

Dismiss the jurisdiction of this Court.

MR. JOEL: Among other things. Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Among other things, yes. I think we will hear

arguments on those issues first before we proceed with the other issues.

So Mr. Joel or Mr. Garn.

ORAL

ARGUMENT

BY

MR

. JOEL

ON

DEFENDANTS

MOTION

TO

VACATE

MR. JOEL: Very good. Thank you, Your Honor.

Again Kenneth Joel on behalf of all the state defendants including

Deputy Attorney General Garn and Deputy Attorney General Shelby.

With respect to the Motion to Vacate, the points I'd like to raise are as

follows:

First of all, the plaintiffs filed their motion for a trial on two, what they

claim to be, causes of actions: declaratory relief and permanent injunction.

Permanent injunction is not a cause of action. It is a remedy. It is a form of relief. It is

not an independent cause of action.


8/114


9/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



in an Order---in the form order I believe was provided by the plaintiffs in which they

tried to get this qualification issue of President Obama back in play.

For example, they had in paragraph eight that the agency appeal was

not heard on the merits. You crossed that out. You crossed out a number of other

paragraphs and you reaffirmed your June 25th order dismissing the challenge to

President Obama and his placement on the ballot as being dismissed with prejudice.

You allowed them though the ability to file a new pleading that had three causes of

action and three causes of action only. Common law tort for fraud, common law tort

for breach of fiduciary duty, common law tort for negligence. That's it.

In violation of that order they added two new defendants, Deputy

Attorney General Garn and Shelby. They added a new plaintiff you said was not

allowed to intervene, Ms Ripley. And they alleged constitutional claims. A claim for

res ispa loquitor. And they tried, once again, to get the declaratory---the

disqualifications challenge to President Obama back. They didn't file an appeal with

the Court of Appeals. The time to do has passed. It is res judicata. It is collateral

estoppel. It is over.

They can not come in here, again and again and again like they've done

throughout the country and try to get President Obama disqualified. They filed their

challenge. It was dismissed. They sought review; dismissed with prejudice and never

appealed it to the Court of Appeals. The only thing that remains before you and before

this Court are three common law claims, pursuant to your order: common law fraud,

common law breach of fiduciary duty and common law negligence.

Now I did a lot of searching; I found no case that would allow a

mandatory injunction, which is what they are seeking here, compelling the State of

Indiana to remove President Obama from the ballot for any of those type of theories.


10/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



And we can get into why those theories fail both jurisdictionally and substantially

when we discuss the Motion to Dismiss. But the bottom line is: their ability, their

challenge to President Obama and President Obama's being on the Indiana ballot for

an election that's happening in fifteen days is over. It's done.

If they want to continue with three common law tort claims against the

defendants that they named for damages. I---I guess if it survives the Motion to

Dismiss we'll take discovery and that will go on. But a claim for declaratory relief has

not been pled and was not allowed by you. An injunction is not a cause action. And

moreover, any claim they could have had to try to challenge the qualifications of

President Obama is over and done. They didn't appeal to the Court of Appeals.

So in sum, there is really no need for a trial today on this bifurcated

couple of types of relief that they want.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you Mr. Joel.

Ms. Taitz or Mr. Black.

RESPONSE

BY

MS

. TAITZ

ON

DEFENDANTS

MOTION

TO

VACATE

MS. TAITZ: Yes, Your Honor.

There are---there are two elections. The first---the first case was filed

back in March in regards to what has happened during the primary election and

actions by the Board prior to primary election.

Currently we have a different election. We have a general election and

plaintiffs have gone to the Election Commission challenging Mr. Obama on the ballot

in this election, in general election. And Elections Board refused to take their

complaint.

Plaintiffs based on a precedence that came from the Supreme Court of


11/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



the State of Indiana and that's Elections Board---State Elections Board vs. Evan Bayh

who is your prior Governor. 521-NE2D-1313 1988. The Supreme Court of Indiana has

ruled that the plaintiffs do not have to exhaust all of their remedies by---available

with the Elections Board or Elections Commission. The plaintiffs are allowed to go

directly to court, particularly if there is proximity of election and seek specifically the

reliefs that we are asking here, which is declaratory relief and injunctive relief. And we

are following a well established precedent of the Supreme Court of the State of

Indiana.

Moreover, plaintiffs have filed elections fraud complaint based on

HAVA which is Help America Vote Act. Those were not heard at all. Not by the

Commission and not in this Court. So plaintiffs are exercising their right for address

of grievances in bringing this grievance and elections fraud in violation of Help

America Vote Act. Stating that there is a violation Indiana Code 3-8-1-6 which states

that candidates for president on the ballot in the State of Indiana has to be eligible

according to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Additionally, the plaintiffs are stating that there is a violation of

Indiana Code 3-5-7-4 that states that the name of the candidate on the ballot has to be

a legal name. And specifically it addresses the name on the birth certificate. And the

plaintiffs have here several witnesses, experts and lay witnesses, with additional

information showing beyond the reasonable doubt that indeed there were such

violations by Mr. Obama as he placed a name that is not legally his and he's not

eligible according to the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, just on Friday the defense has filed right before the end of

the day on Friday, the defense has file the Motion to Dismiss and Vacate and of course

there are fifteen days to respond but we will respond to---we're responding to what's


12/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



relevant to this particular hearing. And it's interesting that in their forty page brief

they did not mention one case that is the most relevant here and thats the case Fulani

v Hogsett 917 Fed. 2d 1028 7th Circuit 1990. Whereby the binding, controlling

opinion of this Circuit Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals specifically

stated that resident by name Lenora Fulani has standing to challenge and in her case

she challenged both presidential candidates on the ballot. One of them later became

President Bush and another candidate of them Michael Dukakis.

So we are following the well established precedent of both the Supreme

Court of the State of Indiana and this Circuit Court of Appeals in going directly to

court and seeking redress of grievances based on violations of specific codes in this

general election that is here to happen in November. And I think that Mr. Black

wanted to add.

MR. BLACK: Can I say one thing you Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honor.

The Second Amended Complaint was labeled in part Complaint for

Declaratory Judgment and in the prayer also for permanent injunction. I think that

was also a title. The labels of our causes, as Your Honor knows, are not important; it's

the substance of the pleadings.

I would draw the courts attention to the following rhetorical

paragraphs which I think state the claim for declaratory relief and the remedy of

permanent injunction.

THE COURT: Let me get that in front of me.

MR. BLACK: Sure and I'll give you paragraphs slowly, Your

Honor. As you know there are many as you caught a comment.


13/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Just let me know when you're ready.

THE COURT: I have it.

MR. BLACK: Okay, Your Honor.

As to duty, the ignorance of duty and of irreparable harm, all these

paragraphs together work for both claims, Your Honor.

In my---we submit to you 13-16, 28-34, 45 & 46, 57 & 58, 61-64, 69, 92

and 139 in particular, declaring that the State has ignored it's duty for legal elections,

has ignored the evidence given them and there is irreparable harm.

Which also, Your Honor, we ask you to take judicial notice under 201 A

& B. And of A, anyone knows that if relief is not given prior to an election, our harm is

irreparable and no legal remedy will suffice.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Give me the date of that filing. I thought I had it.

MR. BLACK: [unintelligible]

MS. TAITZ: Yes. It's September---September 4th.

MR. BLACK: Thats right. September 4th.

THE COURT: Alright, I have it. Very good.

MR. BLACK: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Mr. Black, I write---wrote down most of the paragraphs, could you start

with the second section.

MR. BLACK: Of course.

THE COURT: 45

MR. BLACK: 45 & 46, 57 & 58, 61-64, 69, 92 and 139. The latter


14/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



principally for irreparable harm.

This is not exhaustive. But Your Honor, it's my opinion that these are

central to such claim of reliefs and remedy.

THE COURT: I thinks Mr. Joel's argument is the difference

between injunctive relief and the declaratory action.

MR. BLACK: Declaratory---.

THE COURT: So, go ahead.

MR. BLACK: Declaratory declares the rights and obligations of

the parties. Injunctive relief says there is no adequate remedy in law. The courts must

act now balancing the interest of the parties and the harm that may be done if the

plaintiffs are correct.

THE COURT: Alright. Very good.

Back to you Mr. Joel.

REBUTTALBYMR. JOELON DEFENDANTS MOTIONTO VACATE

MR. JOEL: Just a couple of points, Your Honor.

The HAVA statute that they cite deals with voter fraud. It's not

applicable at all with this case.

In Fulani, the plaintiff, the challenger was actually somebody who was

on the ballot to be president of the United States and was challenging at that point

Vice President Bush and Governor Dukakis. And because that person was on the

ballot they had standing and the court was very clear that was the reason. None of the

plaintiffs conceivably could be on the ballot for president of the United States.

Moreover, it sounds as though they're now abandoning the claims, as

they know they must, regarding the primary but the Second Amended Complaint

speaks to the Primary. So I just don't know how we get to the General Election when


15/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



nothing been filed on the General Election. And moreover Indiana Code 3-8-1-2

makes clear that in Subsection D, the eligibility of a write-in candidate or candidate

nominated by convention, petition, or primary may not be challenged under this

Section if the Commission or Board determines that the following occurred. And one

of them is this challenge would be based on substantially the same grounds as the

previous challenge.

They had their bite at the apple during the Election Commission. They

had their bite at the apple at the Petition for Review. They had their bite at the apple

during the Preliminary Injunction, during the Motion for Reconsideration of the

Preliminary Injunction. How many chances can they be allowed to get when we don't

even have an operative complaint thats now claiming that they want to do something

with regards to General Election.

It's just---it's---there's no---they have three---this Court allowed them

to have three common law claims period. Didn't allow them to re-plead a declaratory

judgment claim. That is part and parcel of the qualifications of President Obama and

whether he should be on the ballot. That was dismissed with prejudice.

They have three common law tort claims, none of which give them a

right to injunctive relief. None of them---you don't need a declaratory relief because

they have these common law tory claims and I guess they can sue the folks for

damages. That's what this case remains. That the only things that are left in this case.

The declaratory judgement, the challenge to President Obama is over. It's done.

They can't keep coming back especially in violation of your order which

only allowed them to file three common law tort claims against the Elections

Commission and the Secretary of State. Period. That's all you allowed. And they tried

to get around that and you denied that.


16/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



THE COURT: Mr. Joel before you---

MR. JOEL: Yes.

THE COURT: [unintelligible]---

MR. JOEL: Yes. Sure.

THE COURT: because I think we managed to mash two distinct

pleadings. And one was a Motion to Vacate this hearing and a Motion to Dismiss. For

some reason Im hearing them both combined. I just want to make I have all your

arguments on each.

Do I have all your arguments on each?

MR. JOEL: No, I have many more arguments on the Motion to

Dismiss.

THE COURT: On the Motion to Dismiss.

MR. JOEL: Im happy to move that. There is some overlap

though Judge. I mean necessarily there is, because what they pled does not lend

themselves to the trial they want today but its also---its also flawed for a number of

other reasons. So Im happy to move into that now if you like me to.

THE COURT: Well to go---I want to go---

MR. JOEL: Sure.

THE COURT: to Ms. Taitz---

MR. JOEL: Not a problem.

THE COURT: and make sure she addressed.

Mr. Joel is making clear that he was just arguing the Motion to Vacate.

Are you addressed everything you need to address in the Motion to Vacate?

We are going to move onto to the Motion to Dismiss.

Ms. Taitz.


17/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



MS. TAITZ: Well first of all---first of all the Motion to Vacate

was filed Fri---.

THE COURT: Ms. Taitz, Im asking the question, did you address

all your arguments on, [unintelligible] to the court all you arguments on the Motion to

Vacate? Thats a simple yes or no.

MS. TAITZ: No.

THE COURT: Alright, then present the remainder of your

argument. Only on the Motion to Vacate.

REBUTTALBYMS. TAITZON DEFENDANTS MOTIONTO VACATE

MS. TAITZ: One of arguments is it was filed Motion to Vacate.

They knew about this trial for two weeks. If they wanted to vacate trial they---they

could bring a timely motion. However they waited until Friday evening, end of the day

on Friday, to file a Motion to Vacate trial that is scheduled for Monday morning. And

I specifically---we had a pre-trial conference and I stated to Your Honor and Mr. Garn

and Ms. Shelby that Im going through an enormous expense of thousands of dollars

of flying witnesses from all over country to this trial.So that if they had any---any

intention to bring a Motion to Vacate this is something that they had to bring timely.

Moreover, I have filed this complaint on September the 4th, now we---

we are at the end of October. Its been nearly two months and its interesting that even

though they had the Second Amended Complaint for two months and they had notice

that it was coming even earlier, since August, they waited until the last possible

moment, Friday night, to file both a Motion to Vacate and a forty page Motion to

Dismiss when the trial is coming today in the morning.

We do have fifteen days to respond to both motions and however what

I would ask the Court since we went through the expense; we brought all the


18/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



witnesses to allow us to present our case. We will file a full brief on their motion

within the allowed time and Your Honor can make a decision. But just throwing

something at us a night before when Im on my way flying to Indiana and I have no

way to respond that really---really robs the plaintiffs of due process---of their due

process rights if their case was to be dismissed by something that was thrown in the

face of the plaintiffs literally a night before trial.

So, I think because we have such limited time and we already took over

half an hour, I would ask if the court would be willing to allow us to present our case,

to allow witnesses to testify. One of them, Mr. Strunk is flying from the State of New

York the third time and allow us to present for brief at a later date.

But I already responded also to what Mr. Joel is saying. First of all,

there was never any adjudication on the merits. None. If Your Honor remembers we

had one cause of action, AOPA appeal, that was dismissed based on a technical issue,

that the certified transcript was not submitted within thirty days. So eligibility---Mr.

Joel would like to present it as if Mr. Obamas qualifications were heard. They were

never heard. The whole point is it was never heard.

One, if we looking at the agency appeal and Your Honor has denied---

dismissed the agency appeal after the primary on a technical issue. Even if we put this

aside we say, ok this was denied on a technical issue, we have multiple other issues

which is elections fraud, based on Help America Vote Act. This was never heard.

I have here witnesses here who will testify that they have filed with the

Elections Commission challenges. Four violation of Help America Vote Act were not

heard---not Mr. Swiharts, not Mr. Kerns, not mine. This was never heard anywhere

not with an agency and not with a court. Even if we were to put aside everything else,

just on this important issue as the---as U.S. Congress wanted the issue of elections


19/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



fraud to be addressed we have the right to proceed on the merits.

But aside from that as I stated we have the issue of this challenge for

the General Election. Even if we were not to file anything, none, even if we werent

filing the Second Amendment Complaint, based on the precedent of Elections Board

vs. Evan Bayh we can go directly here to this trial and seek redress of grievances so---

THE COURT: Ms. Taitz I dont want to shortchange your

argument but I got those prior points and I need to move on.

Now I want to move right into the Motion to Dismiss.

MR. JOEL: Okay.

THE COURT: We are eating up our time so let me hear from you

Mr. Joel on the Motion to Dismiss then Ill go to Ms. Taitz.

ORAL ARGUMENTBYMR. JOELON DEFENDANTS MOTIONTO DISMISS

MR. JOEL: Okay. Very good, Your Honor, thank you.

[unintelligible] on Thursday we filed our Motion to Dismiss and

supporting brief. And for over six months the plaintiffs have tried again and again and

again to bring claims to this court to disqualify President Obama and to get incredible

relief of having this Court order the State of Indiana to remove him from ballots

which frankly have already been mailed. The voting has already been started. Theres

over a 150,000 Hoosiers who have already voted in this election.

They filed their challenge with the Elections Commission in February,

that was denied. They tried to submit all the information that I suspect they are going

to try today. It was denied. The same information that they tried to submit in court

after court after court and I can give you cite after cite after cite of their attempts to do

this throughout the Federal judiciary in these United States. And every time its been

rejected because the things they put forth are inadmissible. The arguments they raise


20/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



are frivolous and theres just theres no basis for what theyre trying to do.

Now with regards to so---the IEC denied it in February of 2012. They

filed something here. You deemed it, for their benefit, as an AOPA judicial review. It

was denied. It was dismissed. It was dismissed with prejudice. They even tried

through their Motion for Reconsideration, their second one. Their first one was

incredibly, whats the word Im looking for-- horrific language in it accusing this

Court of things. But the second one their even tried to get in language that it was not

decided on the merits. You struck those out. You reaffirmed your previous decision.

That case has been decided. Its over. They didnt appeal to the Court of Appeals as

they could of done. Its done. Its done.

As I said before, what they have left are three common law claims. Not

withstanding that they filed for a preliminary injunction. It was heard on September

26th, that was denied. They try to get that reconsidered. Again raising the same issues

of Presidents Obama qualifications. That was denied.

They tried to file a Motion for Intervention of Valeria Ripley. Which

this Court denied. This is all leading up to, time and time again they violated the Local

Rules, the Trial Rules, and your orders. What we have---I mean the Second Amended

Complaint adds two defendants when you didnt allow them to. Adds a plaintiff Ms.

Ripley when you didnt---when you specifically denied that request and add claims

which were not specifically allowed.

In fact, theres claims for defamation in the new one. Constitutional

claims, claims for res ips loquitor, and as I mentioned theres actually no count

alleging a declaratory judgement action claim. Absolutely not.

THE COURT: The counts that Attorney Black referred to in the

amended complaint, youre saying none of the those paragraphs allege any relief


21/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



under the---

MR. JOEL: I---.

THE COURT: declaratory judgement.

MR. JOEL: I dont believe they do Your Honor.

Because--because as I read those paragraphs its seems as though

theyre alleging some sort of generalized duty. But that generalized duty does not

impart a right on these plaintiffs or any of their theories.

And whats more all of those claims go towards their real goal which is

to get some court, despite how many times they tried here and elsewhere, to say that

President Obama is not constitutionally qualified. To get some court, no matter how

many times they tried here and elsewhere, to order a state to kick him off the ballot.

Thats really what this is about and if you look at the theory---the arguments we raised

in our motion to dismiss.

First of all, we raised issues of personal jurisdiction. There is no

summons issued to Garn and Shelby. They should be dismissed. Subject matter

jurisdiction is questions of standing is included within that. Ms. Taitz is not a Indiana

resident. She is not an Indiana voter. She has absolutely no standing to bring any of

these claims common law or otherwise in this Court.

Moreover, this Court lacks jurisdiction because its already---I mean

its already decided the issue. Its over. Theres no way to come back at it again and

again.

With respect to the claims I talked about it a fair amount but it bears

repeating. They keep violating Court orders, Trial Rules, Local Rules in all of their

appearance--- in a lot of their filings. They werent granted leave to file a Second

Amended Complaint for declaratory judgement or anything else. They were allowed it


22/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



for three claims, period. They cant now try to expand this and do--- and do claims

that have already been rejected and dismissed. They cant include new defendants

that have already been rejected. They cant include new defendants that werent

allowed.

Moreover, I would note another violation is that some of the exhibits

that they try to put forth on the Amended Compliant, on the Second Amended

complaint, violate Administrative Rule 9-G and Trial Rule 5-G. They include full

social security numbers. I mean how many times do they get to flout the rules of this

Court before theyre finally---before this case is finally put to rest.

With regards to the ultimate challenge which is: what they want is to

challenge President Obamas qualifications, either the principles of res judicata or

collateral estoppel preclude them from arguing that anymore. They brought it to the

Election Commission. It was denied. It was denied here. It was on the merits. They

werent allowed anything else. This new idea that they can challenge on the General

Election when they havent run that process. I mean its---its---Bayh does not support

what they want to do because in Bayh the Board actually deferred to the Court and

essentially conceded that point. The Board is not conceding that point in this case.

Because these challenges, these issues were decided before, not only by

the administrative process but by this Court, whether its res judicata or collateral

estoppel, its over and they should be precluded. They could have appealed this, as I

mentioned, to the Court of Appeals. They didnt. None of the tort claims that they

raise, that they were allowed to raise, give them the right to mandatory injunctive

relief or declaratory relief. They dont. The tort claims are all that was allowed and

those dont get them the relief they want.

Now if we turn to the tort claims themselves, what is actually I guess


23/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



what is kind of properly before the Court, theres been no tort claim notice filed. That

reason alone they should be dismissed.

Moreover to the extent they are trying to seek damages from the IEC,

the Secretary of State, Mr. Garn and Ms. Shelby, any one of immunities of a number

of immunities apply here whether its performance of their discretionary functions. I

mean what theyre trying to do theyre trying to hold Mr. Garn and Ms. Shelby liable

for doing their jobs and representing the State in these cases. Theyre trying to hold

the IEC and Secretary of State liable for rendering a decision that they disagree with.

That does not rise to the level of a tort. They have immunity for those types of claims.

Those claims therefore, because of immunity there is no jurisdiction, they should be

dismissed.

We cited a number of provisions of the tort claims that would apply to

this. Again whether its discretion, whethers its enforcing the law, the election code,

whether its acts or omission performed in good faith with out malice, whether its the

issuance denial of suspension of some sort of permanent license or certificate

approval of work. Any of those would bar this claim by doctrines of immunity.

Moreover, Section 34-13-3-5C says that you need to have---to get at

these folks individually--- Its a little hard to figure out who they sued for what, but

the only individuals that actually named in the complaint are Garn and Shelby. There

has to be some reasonable factual basis for what they did to impose liability on them

individually. And with all due respect, litigating a case which is their job to do on

behalf of the State of Indiana, defending litigation that is been brought against the

State is exactly what they are supposed to do and they should be actually no claim

against them or against the other State entities.

Moreover, whether its based on the Tort Claims Act or could be based


24/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



on the doctrine of judicial immunity for the IEC for example, Ms. Taitz and her

colleagues brought a challenge; it was denied. They submitted their information; it

was rejected. Thats the job of the Elections Commission to do that. Thats acting in a

judicial capacity; rendering a decision. Thats making an adjudication which is then

lodged as an appeal here. They have absolute judicial immunity for that. Garn and

Shelby representing the State provides them with absolute prosecutorial immunity

for that they done. So beyond the Tort Claims Act, the doctrine of prosecutorial and

judicial immunity would bar these case---would bar these claims.

It seems as though whats they are trying to argue is because you

didnt agree with us youre liable and thats just---thats just not the law in Indiana.

Theres a significant amount of discretion. They heard their arguments. They heard

their piece. They denied it. You just cant come and just willie nillie allege all these

things. I mean just saying its so, this isnt Alice in Wonderland, saying its so doesnt

make it so. And the fact is they had their chance and they just keep coming back and

back and back. And just because the IEC and the Secretary of State or Garn or Shelby

dont agree with them, as did every court that they tried this in within the U.S., dont

agree with them, doesnt mean that there is a claim against these folks. Doesnt mean

that theyre not immune. Doesnt mean that they had their shot and its over.

Throughout complaint there references to some criminal code. Theres

no private right of action for these folks to enforce the criminal code. There just isnt.

So Im not really sure for the claim is there but there cant be a basis for any claim.

THE COURT: Im going to have to ask that you to wind up this---

MR. JOEL: Sure.

THE COURT: argument on---

MR. JOEL: Okay.


25/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



THE COURT: Motion to Dismiss.

MR. JOEL: Okay

THE COURT: So I can---. Im just conscious of the time---

MR. JOEL: Fair enough.

THE COURT: were using.

MR. JOEL: Fair enough.

The Constitutional claims, Judge, again they werent allowed to bring

them before but moreover the Eleventh Amendment would bar them. Theyre not

person for purposes of 1983. They didnt even mention 1983. They cant bring a direct

constitutional claim again State actors, so all of those claims must go.

Moreover, theres no allegation there to substantiate a claim of equal

protection. I mean how were these people treated differently then other people who

submitted a challenge. Theres nothing in there on that.

They had their full panoply of due process rights. They filed their

action. Theyre here now how many times trying to get you to issue another order.

They had their day in court.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Joel before you sit down I want you to

clear up one thing for me and this is for the record by way of just a legal argument.

The plaintiffs allege theyre seeking both injunctive relief and

declaratory relief. For the record, would you state your position as to why either one

or the other should lie or perhaps both. Now just the legal argument not---I

understand your supporting factual argument, but the legal argument on the

difference and why one should apply or one should not.

MR. JOEL: A preliminary injunction is not a cause of action.

Thats point one.


26/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



THE COURT: I got that.

MR. JOEL: It just isnt.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. JOEL: In terms of the declaratory they havent alleged in

the Second Amended Complaint anything to---to---to give rise. They havent cited

that statue. They havent made reference to that statute. They havent cited the

provisions of that statute. They havent pled facts. They have not pled facts in their

Second Amended Complaint to support a claim under the Declaratory Judgement Act

even if you allow them now, after you disallowed them before, the chance to bring the

claim again so.

THE COURT: Well what is troubling me is before we have

addressed the request for injunctive relief. We have addressed that. At least in a prior

hearing, I thought that was the Courts ruling.

So, your position as to requests, if any, and I understand your

argument which is nicely made and your response to the declaratory relief would be

what?

MR. JOEL: That---beyond the fact that they havent alleged it?

That---.

THE COURT: Correct.

MR. JOEL: That as a matter of law they are not able to come to

this Court to seek declaratory relief to get President Obama off the ballot. And I would

note maybe this is the way to address that; we cited in our brief

THE COURT: And I dont have that brief---

MR. JOEL: No, that

THE COURT: at this juncture. It just has not been handed to me.


27/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



MR. JOEL: Thats---thats---Im sorry for that. We do the best

we can with---with all the filings and all the fur thats been going around.

But on page 32 of that brief, Ill give you the exact page number so

youll be able to find it more easily, we cite a case Robinson v. Bowen, 567F Sub 2nd

1144 out of the Northern District of California. And after citing constitutional

provisions and after citing the U.S. Code it states Issues regarding qualifications for

president are quintessentially suited for the foregoing process referring to what was

above arguments regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the

voting public before the election and once the election is over can be raised as

objections as the Electoral Votes are counted in Congress. The members of Senate

and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to

ballots for unallegedly unqualified candidates. There is no basis for coming into this

court to seek declaratory relief to get President Obama disqualified or off the ballot.

Theres---theres just not a claim for declaratory relief there. That---

THE COURT: Alright.

MR. JOEL: I hope I answered the question.

THE COURT: I hope I understand that point.

MR. JOEL: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: Very good.

MR. JOEL: I do have some other points but Im going to yield

to Ms. Taitz so we can move the thing along.

THE COURT: Yes thank you.

Ms. Taitz

MR. JOEL: Everything else is in our brief and well rely on that.

THE COURT: Your response.


28/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



RESPONSEBYMS. TAITZON DEFENDANTS MOTIONTO DISMISS

MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, Im going to take just a few minutes

because weve already taken half of the time on this and we have fifteen days to

respond to their motion and I would like to go to witnesses who are waiting here.

But basically two things. First, Your Honor does has jurisdiction to

issue a declaratory and injunctive relief. Im bringing forward a case of Dunn v.

Moran which came from this Circuit. Its 3-CD415. Where Marion County Superior

Court Judge, John Tinder who later became a Seventh Circuit Court judge, issued a

declaratory and injunctive relief where he stated that specific---a specific slate

provision is in violation of constitution. Thats what we have courts for. Where there

is a decision by the Elections Board plaintiff can---

THE COURT: Ms. Taitz thats not a precedent setting a decision.

MS. TAITZ: Its a precedence setting decision in terms of

injunction and declaratory relief. But as I stated the case Fulani v. Hogsett that I

mentioned before specifically on the point, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated

that if a president---a citizen can bring a challenge, has standing. That specifically this

Court of Appeals found that citizens has standing to come to court and challenge

candidate for president.

THE COURT: Okay

MS. TAITZ: on the ballot.

THE COURT: Ms. Taitz,

MS. TAITZ: Yeah

THE COURT: Ms. Taitz I hate to interrupt you but I want to make

sure that I understand your argument and I have not read the Hogsett case. Have not

read that case.


29/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



But as I understand it and maybe counsel will correct if Im wrong but

Ms. Feowny?

Ms Taitz: Fulani. Lenora Fulani

THE COURT: Fulani was challenging because she was on the

ballot. She herself was a candidate. Is that correct Mr---I---and again

MR. JOEL: Yes it is Your Honor.

THE COURT: I have not read the case. Ill read the case after this

hearing is over.

MR. JOEL: Would you like a cite?

THE COURT: I thought I had written it down.

MS. TAITZ: I cited. I did.

THE COURT: Is it a Fed second?

MR. JOEL: Yeah. 917 F. 2d 1028

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. JOEL: Okay.

THE COURT: That is standing would be an issue and apparently,

not having read the case, that she did have standing to bring the challenge.

MS. TAITZ: Well--- .

THE COURT: That is not our fact situation here. So proceed with

your argument based on that

MS. TAITZ: What---.

THE COURT: observation that I havent read the case.

MS. TAITZ: What plaintiffs are stating and they--they have

read from case Robinson v. Bowen, what they are stating in their forty page brief and

they stating now that its only up to Congress to decide and what Im bring this case to


30/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



State. No, what theyre briefing in that forty page brief is simply incorrect. Is not only

up to Congress to decide. It can be brought by citizens. We did not have a situation

like we have today---.

THE COURT: Do you have a case cite to support that or a

statutory cite?

MS. TAITZ: As a matter of fact I was and I actually quoted this

in my reply, to previously---. I was an attorney for plaintiffs in the State of Georgia

where the court decided that regular voters have standing to challenge a candidate for

president on the ballot and I actually provided a quote for Your Honor in my reply to

opposition is---. The case is Farrar et al v Obama and it came from the Administrative

Court of the State Of Georgia. The---the defense just as it is here attorney for Mr.

Obama, Mr. Michael Jablonski, filed a motion to dismiss claiming the same thing.

That the voters can not challenge a candidate on the ballot and the court order

decided that voters do have the right to challenge a candidate for president on the

ballot.

There was similar case in the State--- in the State of New Jersey and it

was case of Nicholas Purpura that was brought by---who was represented by attorney

Mr. Apuzzo. And the court in New Jersey ruled the same thing that voters have a right

to challenge candidate on the ballot and at this point it goes to evidence. Do we have

enough evidence to---to show that he can not be on the ballot? And with---I---Im

asking Your Honor since half of the time has passed, they already took a whole hour

for their motion, if I may start with my case so that I can have witnesses testify.

THE COURT: And well get there. We just---I just have to have

your response.

Mr. Black did you have any---


31/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



MR. BLACK: Yes I do.

THE COURT: additional argument.

MR. BLACK: A couple things.

One, your jurisdiction, as we said last time I believe either over the

phone or in person, is paramount. Statute is Indiana Code Section 33-29-1-1.51, all

standard Superior Courts have original jurisdiction in all civil cases. Article 7 of

Section I of our Constitution provides that the judiciary is our branch that decides

these disputes.

And if I may, Your Honor, in connection with my brief remarks present

you with an evidentiary brief I served on the other counsel. Its very brief. And what it

does, Your Honor, at the top and these are just salient points I think Your Honor

would want to refer to and I prepared this Friday.

THE COURT: Alright stop.

Mr. Black let me make sure this--- Im clear on this. This is the

evidentiary brief---

MR. BLACK: It is.

THE COURT: in response to the Motion to Dismiss.

MR. BLACK: Its connection---

MS. TAITZ: No.

MR. BLACK: with it.

MS. TAITZ: No Its Not

MR. BLACK: But I going to file it anyway given the advent of

evidence but I want you to have it now for this reason. The reason is that with Your

Honors grace we filed a Second Amended Complaint and I would wish to point out

that in rhetorical paragraph 14 of the Complaint we cite that Indianas legislature in


32/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



its wisdom has said that all candidates for president of the United states must be

qualified under the United States Constitution as natural born citizens.

Our evidence, Your Honor, will be that the birth certificate provided by

the White House last year is a forgery. And the duty incumbent as that is the only

evidence we have that this man is qualified to run is forgery and its the duty of the

State to deny him access to the ballot.

Our prayer for relief, Your Honor, in the Second Amended Complaint

says, plaintiffs are seeking an emergency injunctive relief in the form of a writ of

mandamus. That we pleaded. Thats not a preliminary injunction,Your Honor. Im

aware of what you are thinking on that. But on the preliminary injunction, as this

court seared into our memory, there was no evidence. So theres no collateral estoppel

or res judicata on that point.

THE COURT: Alright. Thank you Mr. Black. Ive got to go back.

Mr. Joel, I want you to wind your argument---

MR. JOEL: I will

THE COURT: like less than a minute. We need to move on.

MR. JOEL: Thats fine. Then Ill rely on my brief for the other

points that we raised

THE COURT: Alright.

REBUTTALBYMR. JOELON DEFENDANTS MOTIONTO DISMISS

MR. JOEL: Thats fine. Just a couple of quick points.

Mandamus is extraordinary relief, its only for ministerial act. The

Elections Commission has discretion to make these decisions. They did. Mandamus

cant lie.

And with respect to that collateral estoppel argument, they missed the


33/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



point. They had their shot. It was on merits, you decided it was on the merits,

therefore that is what is collateral estoppel.

THE COURT: Alright, thank you.

MR. JOEL: Ill wrap it up.

THE COURT: And now housekeeping. The evidentiary brief just

handed to me by plaintiffs counsel.

Plaintiffs counsel, this is more appropriately filed in connection with

your pursuit with declaratory judgement. I think. None the less Im going to file it.

You referred to it---

MR. BLACK: Thank you

THE COURT: in your argument and I will file mark it today---

MR. BLACK: Thank you Judge.

THE COURT: on todays date. Now, we do have a Motion for

Default and we need to address that very quickly. Then were going to move on at

some point.

ORAL

ARGUMENT

BY

MS

. TAITZ

ON

PLAINTIFFS

MOTION

FOR

DEFAULT

MS. TAITZ: Yes, Your Honor, I dont want to take much time

default is rarely granted and Im aware of this. But I wanted to point to, Your Honor,

that when Ms. Shelby filed a motion for enlargement of time she stated that she

needed additional time because she was served with a summons only on September

the 19th.

She did not advise Your Honor that she was served by certified mail on

September the 11th. And I have attached a certified mail receipt therefore the

enlargement of time that was requested was obtained under false pretenses. Because

in regards to two defendants, Elections Commission and Secretary of State, there was


34/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



no need for any summons and they were under standing order from Your Honor to

respond within twenty-three days. They did not do so and therefore since the

enlargement was obtained under false pretenses I--I ask to have it rescinded and

default.

I know that this rarely granted but I had to bring it. Its an important

issue to bring to you. Since particularly since Your Honor has stated that it is

important for parties to follow the rules and direction of this court and it clearly was

not followed. And instead of submitting their motion of October the 4th, they ended

up submitting on Friday, October the 19th right before trial. And I felt it was done

under false pretenses in order to rob us of our due process and having our time. And I

would like to go now to witnesses in my case.

THE COURT: Ms. Taitz we do things in order. Lets hold off just

for a moment.

The Amended Complaint that was filed on September the 4th--. I

asking this question because I want to make sure that I understand your argument,

was dated September 4th. Summonses were issued apparently September 13th.

Would that be correct?

MS. TAITZ: Well shes stating that she received it on the 19th.

She saying 19th. They were issued on the 13th maybe, but she said that she was served

with summons on the 19th. However in regards to two defendants there was no need

for summons at all and she got Second Amended Complaint on the 11th. She was

under your order, Your Honor, to respond within 23 days from September the 11th

when she got the Second Amended Complaint and regards to those two parties which

would have been October 4th. Therefore the defense was under an obligation to file


35/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



their answer or Motion to Dismiss on October 4th. Instead---instead they basically

played a game and waited until October 19th.

But I really dont want to spend any more time on this because all of the

witnesses.

THE COURT: The Sheriff shows a return of service on the 17th of

September. Than there is a twenty day window to respond.

MS. TAITZ: But its in regard to other parties, not in regards to

two parties who didnt need summons at all.

THE COURT: Alright. Im going to get back to Mr. Garn.

Mr. Garn, this is on the Motion for Default.

MR. JOEL: I take this one Your Honor. With regard to the

Motion for

THE COURT: Oh Im sorry Mr. Joel. I said Mr. Garn thinking it

was [unintelligible].

Response by Mr. Joel on Plaintiffs Motion for Default

MR. JOEL: Thats alright. No need to apologize. Were fine.

Your Honor, I have the Motion for Enlargement of Time now right in

front of me. It was bit confusing to us to say the least. Out of an abundance of caution

we actually reached out to the other side and even though we would be entitled to an

automatic extension of time of 30 days under the Local Rules. We reached out to the

other side to try to get their concurrence. It was denied. They objected to it.

So what we did was we filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time in which

we asked to be given til October 19th to file whatever it is we were going to file. You

granted that. We filed it a day earlier on the 18th. Were completely in compliance


36/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



with your order and Im looking at---at--- in terms of the summons issue, no

summons yet has still been to Garn or Shelby. But with regards---the plaintiffs went

out of their way, they issued new summons to the IEC and the Secretary of State.

THE COURT: When were they issued?

MR. JOEL: Theyre now claiming that they---

Im sorry?

THE COURT: When were they issued?

MR. JOEL: I think you had it right. I think it was 9-13, but by

the time it got to---.

THE COURT: Thats when they were filed with the clerk.

MR. JOEL: I dont.

THE COURT: Im sorry, Im asking question inappropriately.

When the service was effected. I think my records show that they were, summons

were tended to the clerk on September 13th. The complaint, the amended complaint

was filed September 4th but the summons I have in my file were tendered to the clerk

on the 13th.

MR. JOEL: Correct.

THE COURT: At least that the file stamped. It appears on the face

of the summons [unintelligible] clerk. Then service would have been effected some

time after---

MR. JOEL: Some time after that.

THE COURT: after that. Correct.

MR. JOEL: And---and frankly, we didnt even get the Second

Amended Complaint from them. We got some other filings and then checked the


37/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



docket and found it had been filed and we came over and picked it up and then was on

the 11th.

The reality is Judge there were just all these dates floating around. We

have a new plaintiff. We have new claims. We have new defendants. We tried to work

with them to get an extension that would be agreed to. Wed be entitled

[unintelligible].

THE COURT: The court did grant the extension.

MR. JOEL: And the court granted it until the 19th and we filed

it on the 18th.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. JOEL: Its timely.

THE COURT: Anything else on the Motion---

MR. JOEL: To?

THE COURT: the Default.

MR. JOEL: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ms. Taitz---

MS. TAITZ: No

THE COURT: wind it up very quickly.

MS. TAITZ: No, Your Honor.


Now I think on those matters that we addressed heretofore the first

hour was the Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Default, Motion to Vacate. Those are

under advisement.

What were going to do is---.


38/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



I will say this on the record, any request for injunctive relief it seems to

me has been ruled on. Weve already addressed a request for injunctive relief and the

plaintiff failed to carry their burden on that request.

However, the plaintiffs are all we---alleging a right to declaratory relief

and Ill allow the plaintiffs to present what they have in the way of evidence or

argument regarding their request for declaratory relief.

MS. TAITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Were going to try to do that within the context of

one hour. Now, having said that well see where we are at the end of the hour. I do not

wish to cut either side off. Ill like you to have your---

MS. TAITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: whole opportunity and day in court. But let me

note for the record there was no request for time in the motion when this hearing was

set. Its---its under our Local Rules, an attorney must request---


THE COURT: the amount of time [unintelligible].

MR. BLACK: And I apologize for that Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thats thats fine Mr. Black, but the Court is left

with setting the time and on our calendar we allotted two hours.

At this juncture well get you your two hours. It will be up to the Court

as to where we are and how we need to proceed at the end of that time.

Ms. Taitz you want to call your first witness.

MS. TAITZ: Yes, I just wanted to check. Its now nearly 11.09 so

well have until 12.09 to present our case.


39/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Im calling my first witness. Mr. Christopher Strunk.

THE COURT: Alright. Mr. Strunk

MR. JOEL: Your Honor, can I just---.

THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Joel?

MR. JOEL: We renew our objection to the trial based on the

Motion to Vacate. Just so that thats clear.

Number two, Id ask for Your Honor for an order sequestering any

other witnesses that they may have and preventing counsel from discussing any

witnesses testimony if we have any breaks or anything like that.

THE COURT: Very good.

Mr., is it Mr. Strunk?

MR. STRUNK: Strunk.

THE COURT: Please come up and have a seat here. Just a

moment I need to rule.

Ms. Taitz do you have a response to Mr. Joels request for separation

witness.

MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, I dont believe it will be necessary

because we have submitted to this court

MR. BLACK: (whispering) They have right to it. They have a

right.

MR. BLACK: Your Honor, our understanding is they have a

right.

MS. TAITZ: Well stipulate. Okay, well stipulate to this.

THE COURT: Alright, thank you.

Alright Mr. Joel---


40/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



MR. BLACK: (whispering) In Indiana they [unintelligible]

MS. TAITZ: Uh huh

THE COURT: well get to you this moment.

Will any person who presently seated in the courtroom who know

themselves to be witnesses in this case or believe they may be called as witnesses to

vacate the courtroom at this time.

Now listen carefully, you may not discuss this case with anyone

including each other, counsel, parties, any other person while you outside of the

courtroom and waiting to be called as a witness in this matter. Alright.

Any of those persons who know themselves to be witnesses.

Now typically---.

Hold on, Mr. Kern. Mr.---. Mr. Kern.

Mr. Black.

MR. BLACK: Your Honor.

THE COURT: Will you please attention to the court.

THE COURT: Such a motion does not require plaintiffs to leave

the courtroom.

MR. BLACK: Of course---.

MS. TAITZ: No, no, no. We---.

MR. BLACK: [unintelligible]

THE COURT: Such motion does not require--- so the plaintiffs I

see are exiting the courtroom. It is not---

MS. TAITZ: Then I---.

THE COURT: necessary that the plaintiffs leave. Just witnesses

that are not plaintiffs.


41/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



MS. TAITZ: Okay we have---.

THE COURT: So Mr. Black you might want to go retrieve your

people.

MR. BLACK: Yeah.

And I wish to mention the witnesses who arent from Indiana what that

really means.

THE COURT: No, were not going to have any discussion with the

witnesses. Just ask the plaintiffs to return to the courtroom so we can get started.

MS. TAITZ: Okay

THE COURT: Just hold on. Ms Taitz hold on.

[unintelligible] Alright.

Ms. Taitz, now were ready to proceed.

Will you identify this witness for me?

MS. TAITZ: Yes, Your Honor. Would you like to---this is Mr.

THE COURT: Just state his name.

MS. TAITZ: Christopher Earl Strunk

THE COURT: Alright, Mr. Strunk would you raise your right

hand?

Do you swear and affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth,

the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

MR. STRUNK: I do.

THE COURT: Please be seated.

Ms. Taitz.

MS. TAITZ: Yes

MR. JOEL: Your Honor can I just place an objection since in


42/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



our judgement the declaratory judgement etc. should be vacated theres no need or

reason for these witnesses. I just want to make--

THE COURT: I think you did.

MR. JOEL: I just want to make sure

THE COURT: You made it clear now.

MR. JOEL: and---.

THE COURT: Well show that the defendants are continuing

objection to the proceedings on the declaratory judgement.

MR. JOEL: Very good, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Alright.


THE COURT: Ms. Taitz.

DIRECT EXAMINATIONOF MR. STRUNKBYMS TAITZ

MS. TAITZ: Would you like to state for---to the court your

name, your full name and spell your last name please.

MR. STRUNK: Christopher Earl Strunk. S t r u n k and Im from

Brooklyn, New York.

MS. TAITZ: Mr. Strunk, I would like to point and I will provide

to the Court, and to the defense as well, your declaration that was made---.

Your Honor, may I approach?

THE COURT: You may approach.

MS. TAITZ: Your declaration that was made under penalty or

perjury.

Is that your declaration?

MR. STRUNK: Yes, it is.


43/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



MR. JOEL: Objection, Your Honor. Hes reading from hearsay.

THE COURT: Alright. Now I have an objection. Mr. Strunk just

identified this document being his declaration.

Mr. Joel state your objection evidentiary terms on the record. Because I

have no offer of anything yet.

MR. JOEL: Well I guess---. I just want to make sure Im

protecting myself. I know that you dont [unintelligible] bit

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. JOEL: But before we get too far afield I wanted to make

sure it was there.

Our objections are as follows. Number one, this document is hearsay.

Number two, the attachment to it.

THE COURT: Well we havent even identified the document yet.

So---.

MS. TAITZ: May I proceed Your Honor.

THE COURT: I dont know what the document is.

MR. JOEL: Okay, I will---.

THE COURT: Im not looking at the document.

MR. JOEL: Okay I will--

THE COURT: Its not evidence yet.

MR. JOEL: I will hold off and object at the appropriate time.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Ms. Taitz proceed.

MS. TAITZ: Yes.

Mr. Strunk did you write to the State Department and request under


44/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



the Freedom of Information Act passport records of deceased mother of Mr. Obama?

MR. STRUNK: Yes I did.

MR. JOEL: Objection. Your Honor I dont understand how this

is relevant. Making a Freedom of Information request to President Obamas mother.

MS. TAITZ: [Gasps loudly.]

THE COURT: Just hold on.

Alright, its---the objection is based on relevance.

MR. JOEL: This one is---

THE COURT: Correct?

MR. JOEL: Yes.

THE COURT: Alright.

Ms. Taitz---

MS. TAITZ: Yes.

THE COURT: reply to the objection based upon relevance.

MS. TAITZ: Mr. Obama is listed in his mothers passport

records and it shows that his last name is not the name that he put on the ballot.

THE COURT: Ill overrule the objection.

Proceed Ms. Taitz.

MS. TAITZ: Did you receive from the State Department a

response and passport records for Miss. Stanley Anne Dunham, Mr. Obamas

mothers.

MR. JOEL: Objection. Shes leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. TAITZ: Did you receive them?

MR. STRUNK: I received the documents for Stanley Anne


45/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Dunham Soetoro. I had requested her previous records and they were withheld and

thats under--- The case is still ongoing four years later.

MS. TAITZ: Yes. I understand. But what you have in front of

you, are those the records your received directly from the State Department?

MR. STRUNK: Yes. July 29th, 2010 I got the letter apologizing for

not getting---.

MR. JOEL: Objection, Your Honor. Now hes starting to read

from documents that are clearly hearsay.

MR. STRUNK: Im not reading from documents.

THE COURT: [unintelligible] Hold on.

I need our response your Ms. Taitz.

MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, I---its an exception to hearsay rules

since it is an official governmental record. Its official state---.

THE COURT: That doesnt address the objection.

Here. Sir turn the document over. Turn the document over.

MR. STRUNK: Oh.

MS. TAITZ: You have it [unintelligible].

THE COURT: Alright. He is not reading from the document.

Now, Ms. Taitz go on with your questioning.

MS. TAITZ: Is this---so is this a true and correct copy?

MR. STRUNK: Yes, I provided

MR. JOEL: Objection, Your Honor. How can he know if its a

true or correct copy. Its not certified, its not authenticated. We dont have anybody

here from the federal government.

THE COURT: Respond, Ms. Taitz.


46/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



MS. TAITZ: Uh

MR. BLACK: May I response, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

MR. BLACK: Under 803 I believe it is 8, as an exception to the

hearsay rule public records and reports are exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Under 9021 domestic public documents do not to be self-authenticated

by extensive proof of custody.

So the two read together 8038 and 9021 I believe, in this case as in

many others in this case, before you are exceptions to hearsay rule as provided by the

State Department of the United States.

THE COURT: Alright, response Mr. Joel.

MR. JOEL: The hearsay wasnt that objection.

This was about the document itself. And we have no evidence of its

authenticity. We have no evidence of whether this was a copy that was actually

produced by the federal government. We none of those indicia of reliability or

authentication of and I dont know---I dont really know that a purported letter

responding to something is whats contemplated by the term public document. It

seems to me that would be a public document thats on file thats recordable that

people can go and see.

MS. TAITZ: Im---.

MR. JOEL: This is---its our position that this document has

not been properly authenticated. Moreover, it is hearsay. But certainly it has not been

properly authenticated and cannot be by this witness.

THE COURT: Alright. Let me go to Ms. Taitz or Mr. Black. One

of---.


47/114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



MR. BLACK: Your Honor, this witness is testified in response to

his letter he received these documents from said State Department.

THE COURT: Ms. Taitz anything?

MS. TAITZ: Additionally, on the letter it specifically states here

there is a stamp of the United States Department of State. There is a date---.

THE COURT: Ms. Taitz do you understand certification?

MS. TAITZ: I understand there is a certification.

T

Unofficial Transcript 22 October 2012 Taitz v Elections Board

Documents

Transcript of Unofficial Transcript 22 October 2012 Taitz v Elections Board