Unofficial Transcript 22 October 2012 Taitz V Elections Board

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
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 of Indiana County of Marion Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, Karl Swihart, Edward Kesler, Bob Kern, Frank Weyl and Valeria Ripley, Plaintiffs vs. Election Commission, Secretary of State of Indiana, Deputy Attorney General Jefferson Garn, Assistant Attorney, General
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.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
In the Marion Superior Court Civil Court 14
Trial Court Case No. 49D-14-1203-MI-012046
Kate Shelby, 1310 Radio/WTLC Amos Born, In his capacity of the Talk Show Host of the 1310 Radio/WTLC Defendants.
Before the Honorable S. K. Reid, Judge
UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1
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. Gregory Black Attorney at Law PO Box 845 On behalf of the Petitioners: Dr. Orly Taitz Attorney at Law (INO)
APPEARANCES
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste. 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
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
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: local attorney for Dr. Taitz. MS. TAITZ: MS. TAITZ: Alright. Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Orly Taitz and I'm Your Honor, I'm Greg Black. I'm co-counsel and
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: THE COURT: MR. KERN: THE COURT: MR. WEYL: Valeria Ripley, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Alright, Miss Ripley. Bob Kern, Indianapolis. Mr. Kern. Frank Weyl, Muncie, Indiana.
MR. SWIHART: Karl Swihart, Avon, Indiana. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Do I have one more? He couldn't make it. I'm sorry? 3
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 Joel.
MS. TAITZ: THE COURT:
He couldn't---. Yes, but he could not make it. 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: Is it Mr. Joel? MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Yes, last name is Joel, J o e l. J o e l and I think I did that to you last time, Mr. Thank you Mr. Garn.
MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: as I should. I will try. THE COURT:
Not a problem. It's the hearing. I apologize. I tend to---. I sometimes don't speak up as loudly
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.
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 plaintiff.
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
MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: declaratory judgment. THE COURT: MR. BLACK: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL:
No. Alright, very good. Oh, excuse me. Your Honor, I think we also asked for a trial on
Thank you. Yes. Sure. Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor. 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 5
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: MR. JOEL: one. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: I don't have a copy. So--Can I approach? it might be--Pardon. good if I have copy of the motion. And we already served plaintiffs--Alright, very good. on Friday. Thank you so much. And this is actually the Opposition to Motion to Alright. I have a copy if you like if you don't already have
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: MR. JOEL: Both of apparently got in the wrong court. Yeah, you see that one has the right cause number.
I suspect that one was on the top of her list. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Alright, very good. Sorry about that. Ms. Taitz, you and Mr. Black, you have copies of 6
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: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor we do, however it was---. 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: THE COURT: Correct. And they have challenged through their Motion to
Dismiss the jurisdiction of this Court. MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Among other things. Yes, Your Honor. 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.
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
Number two, declaratory judgement if you look at their Second Amended Complaint, which is the operative document, has no reference to the Uniform Declaratory Judgement Act. No allegations of a declaratory judgement claim being set forth. The plaintiffs can control their own pleadings and their motions. For that reason and additional ones I'll get into in a moment, theres no need to have a trial here today. They haven't pled. They haven't filed the appropriate motion to get the issues before you on trial because frankly those two issues are no longer in this case. Specifically, the plaintiffs and Ms. Taitz, who is in privity with them, filed the challenge with the Elections Commission challenging the qualifications of President Obama. That was denied on February 22nd of this year. They then filed something in this court; I guess it was Petition for Declaratory Relief and Injunction. With this court giving them the benefit of the doubt, since any action from the commission would be subject to AOPA and subject to the judicial review process. Even though it wasn't entitled a Petition for Judicial Review, giving them the benefit of the doubt deemed it be as such. That was then dismissed. And it was dismissed with prejudice. Now in the interim they filed a First Amended Complaint which tried to tack on some common law tort claims: negligence, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. That's it. This Courts June 25th Order concluded that all claims were dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a couple of motions under Rule 60 claiming that there was some sort of clerical error on that. Again I don't believe that would be the appropriate method to seek reconsideration, but none-the-less that's what they did. And what this court did after looking at the whole thing decided on August 17th, 2012,
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.
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
10
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
11
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: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: Can I say one thing you Honor? Yes. 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: MR. BLACK: Let me get that in front of me. Sure and I'll give you paragraphs slowly, Your
Honor. As you know there are many as you caught a comment.

12
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: MR. BLACK: I have it. 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: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: Give me the date of that filing. I thought I had it. [unintelligible] Yes. It's September---September 4th. Thats right. September 4th. Alright, I have it. Very good. Thank you, Judge. Thank you.
Mr. Black, I write---wrote down most of the paragraphs, could you start with the second section. MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: Of course. 45 45 & 46, 57 & 58, 61-64, 69, 92 and 139. The latter
13
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: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: Declaratory---. So, go ahead. 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. REBUTTAL BY MR. JOEL ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO 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
14
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.
15
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 Dismiss.
THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT:
Mr. Joel before you--Yes. [unintelligible]--Yes. Sure. 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
THE COURT: MR. JOEL:
On the Motion to Dismiss. 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: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Well to go---I want to go--Sure. to Ms. Taitz--Not a problem. 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.
16
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: was filed Fri---. THE COURT:
Well first of all---first of all the Motion to Vacate
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: THE COURT: No. Alright, then present the remainder of your
argument. Only on the Motion to Vacate. REBUTTAL BY MS. TAITZ ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO 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
17
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
18
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: THE COURT: Okay. 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 ARGUMENT BY MR. JOEL ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO 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
19
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
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: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: I---. declaratory judgement. 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
21
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
22
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
23
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: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: Im going to have to ask that you to wind up this--Sure. argument on--Okay. 24
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: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL:
Motion to Dismiss. Okay So I can---. Im just conscious of the time--Fair enough. were using. 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: Thats point one.
A preliminary injunction is not a cause of action.
25
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 That---.
THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL:
I got that. It just isnt. Okay. 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?
THE COURT: MR. JOEL:
Correct. 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: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: And I dont have that brief--No, that at this juncture. It just has not been handed to me. 26
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: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: Alright. I hope I answered the question. I hope I understand that point. Thank you, Judge. Very good. 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: THE COURT: Everything else is in our brief and well rely on that. Your response. 27
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
RESPONSE BY MS. TAITZ ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO 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: Ms. Taitz thats not a precedent setting a decision. 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: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Okay on the ballot. Ms. Taitz, Yeah 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.
28
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. Feowny?
But as I understand it and maybe counsel will correct if Im wrong but
Ms Taitz: THE COURT:
Fulani. Lenora Fulani Fulani was challenging because she was on the
ballot. She herself was a candidate. Is that correct Mr---I---and again MR. JOEL: THE COURT: hearing is over. MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Would you like a cite? I thought I had written it down. I cited. I did. Is it a Fed second? Yeah. 917 F. 2d 1028 Yeah. Okay. That is standing would be an issue and apparently, Yes it is Your Honor. I have not read the case. Ill read the case after this
not having read the case, that she did have standing to bring the challenge. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: your argument based on that MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: What---. observation that I havent read the case. What plaintiffs are stating and they--they have Well--- . That is not our fact situation here. So proceed with
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
29
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: statutory cite? MS. TAITZ: As a matter of fact I was and I actually quoted this Do you have a case cite to support that or a
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: your response. Mr. Black did you have any--UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1
And well get there. We just---I just have to have
30
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: THE COURT: MR. BLACK:
Yes I do. additional argument. 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: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: It is. in response to the Motion to Dismiss. Its connection--No. with it. No Its Not 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
31
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: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: points that we raised THE COURT: Alright. I will like less than a minute. We need to move on. Thats fine. Then Ill rely on my brief for the other
REBUTTAL BY MR. JOEL ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO 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
32
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: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Alright, thank you. Ill wrap it up. 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: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: Thank you in your argument and I will file mark it today--Thank you Judge. 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
33
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: 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. Ms. Taitz we do things in order. Lets hold off just
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
34
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: Motion for THE COURT: was [unintelligible]. Response by Mr. Joel on Plaintiffs Motion for Default MR. JOEL: Thats alright. No need to apologize. Were fine. Oh Im sorry Mr. Joel. I said Mr. Garn thinking it I take this one Your Honor. With regard to the
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
35
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: MR. JOEL: Im sorry? THE COURT: MR. JOEL: the time it got to---. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Thats when they were filed with the clerk. I dont. Im sorry, Im asking question inappropriately. When were they issued? I think you had it right. I think it was 9-13, but by When were they issued? Theyre now claiming that they---
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: THE COURT: Correct. 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: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: Some time after that. after that. Correct. And---and frankly, we didnt even get the Second
Amended Complaint from them. We got some other filings and then checked the
36
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: MR. JOEL: it on the 18th. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Okay. Its timely. Anything else on the Motion--To? the Default. No, Your Honor. Ms. Taitz--No wind it up very quickly. No, Your Honor. Alright, very good. The court did grant the extension. And the court granted it until the 19th and we filed
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---.
37
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: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. 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: THE COURT: Thank you, Your Honor. 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--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. the amount of time [unintelligible]. And I apologize for that Your Honor. 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.

38
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 right. right. witness.
Im calling my first witness. Mr. Christopher Strunk. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: Alright. Mr. Strunk Your Honor, can I just---. Yes. 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: THE COURT: moment I need to rule. Ms. Taitz do you have a response to Mr. Joels request for separation Strunk. Please come up and have a seat here. Just a
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
MR. BLACK:
Your Honor, our understanding is they have a
MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Alright Mr. Joel---
Well stipulate. Okay, well stipulate to this. Alright, thank you.
39
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: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT:
(whispering) In Indiana they [unintelligible] Uh huh 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: THE COURT: THE COURT: the courtroom. MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: Of course---. No, no, no. We---. [unintelligible] Such motion does not require--- so the plaintiffs I Your Honor. Will you please attention to the court. Such a motion does not require plaintiffs to leave
see are exiting the courtroom. It is not--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: that are not plaintiffs.
Then I---. necessary that the plaintiffs leave. Just witnesses
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 hand? really means. people.
Okay we have---. So Mr. Black you might want to go retrieve your
MR. BLACK:
Yeah.
And I wish to mention the witnesses who arent from Indiana what that
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: THE COURT: Okay 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: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. Would you like to---this is Mr. Just state his name. Christopher Earl Strunk Alright, Mr. Strunk would you raise your right
Do you swear and affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: Ms. Taitz. MS. TAITZ: MR. JOEL: Yes Your Honor can I just place an objection since in 41 I do. Please be seated.
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: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: I think you did. I just want to make sure You made it clear now. and---. Well show that the defendants are continuing
objection to the proceedings on the declaratory judgement. MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Very good, Your Honor. Alright. Yes, Your Honor. Ms. Taitz.
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. STRUNK BY MS 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: Brooklyn, New York. MS. TAITZ: Mr. Strunk, I would like to point and I will provide Christopher Earl Strunk. S t r u n k and Im from
to the Court, and to the defense as well, your declaration that was made---. Your Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: perjury. Is that your declaration? MR. STRUNK: Yes, it is. 42 You may approach. Your declaration that was made under penalty or
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 So---.
MR. JOEL: THE COURT:
Objection, Your Honor. Hes reading from hearsay. 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: MR. JOEL: 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. I understand. But before we get too far afield I wanted to make
MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Ms. Taitz proceed. MS. TAITZ:
May I proceed Your Honor. I dont know what the document is. Okay, I will---. Im not looking at the document. Okay I will-Its not evidence yet. I will hold off and object at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Yes.
Mr. Strunk did you write to the State Department and request under
43
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: MR. JOEL: Yes I did. 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: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Ms. Taitz--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Yes. reply to the objection based upon relevance. Mr. Obama is listed in his mothers passport This one is--Correct? Yes. Alright.
records and it shows that his last name is not the name that he put on the ballot. THE COURT: Proceed Ms. Taitz. MS. TAITZ: Did you receive from the State Department a Ill overrule the objection.
response and passport records for Miss. Stanley Anne Dunham, Mr. Obamas mothers. MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: MR. STRUNK: Objection. Shes leading. Overruled. Did you receive them? I received the documents for Stanley Anne 44
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: not getting---. MR. JOEL: Objection, Your Honor. Now hes starting to read Yes. July 29th, 2010 I got the letter apologizing for
from documents that are clearly hearsay. MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: Im not reading from documents. [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: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Oh. You have it [unintelligible]. Alright. He is not reading from the document.
Now, Ms. Taitz go on with your questioning. MS. TAITZ: MR. STRUNK: MR. JOEL: Is this---so is this a true and correct copy? Yes, I provided 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. 45
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 of---.
MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MR. BLACK:
Uh May I response, Your Honor. Yes, you may. 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: MR. JOEL: Alright, response 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: MR. JOEL: Im---. 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
46
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: Ms. Taitz anything? 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: THE COURT: certified document. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: admissibility of the document. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Im---. Im not certain we even we talking admissability But there is a----. Do you have any other additional arguments for Ms. Taitz do you understand certification? I understand there is a certification. Because a letterhead or stamp appears does not
here. I think were just talking about references. MS. TAITZ: If I may, Your Honor, because what I---what Mr.
Joel is doing---. Basically we will run out of time. If we can stipulate to the fact the Mr. Joel made objections and we will ask to rule on all the objections at the time as Your Honor rules on our evidence as well so that we can---we have so little time. Its---you know Mr. Joel has eaten already 70% of the time given for this hearing. I would like to bring, all of his objection can be noted and ruled upon later, if we may. THE COURT: Ms. Taitz, first of all thats not how we do it trial.
We have an objection, a ruling at that time. So I have to follow rules. Secondly, just as a housekeeping matter. Ill take a response to an
47
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
objection from one either you Mr. Taitz or Mr. Black but not both of you. Alright, I did that just now and that was error on my part I believe. I dont want to double team the opposing side. So one you decide whos going to respond and then Ill only one response. MR. BLACK: THE COURT: I should, Your Honor. Alright very good.
Now the last objection Im going to sustain so far as---well---. Let me go this way, let me just have the question rephrased so that we can start over. And then we deal, because no documents been offered yet. The record has been reserved. Ms. Taitz, will you continue with your question. MS. TAITZ: Yes, Your Honor.
We will continue with the fact that according to Mr. Strunk he received this letter from the State---. THE COURT: question. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Okay I dont want to hear from you. Mr. Strunk, what Im asking you if youre looking at I dont need testimony from you. You ask your
the document that you are stating that you received from the State Department and on this part which is I believe marked as P1, what is the name which or names---what is name that is written here? Can you please read--MR. STRUNK: my memory MS. TAITZ: Okay. What is the name please? 48 I dont need it. At this point its become sealed in
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. STRUNK: in parentheses. MS. TAITZ: MR. JOEL: understand what the question is.
Barack Hussein Obama and the name Soebarakh
So his last name is marked as Soebarakh Objection. How can he---I mean I guess dont
Is the question is, what does a piece of paper say? In which case its inadmissiable. Is the question that this gentleman is trying to testify that President Obama has a different last name? In which case he has no personal knowledge or basis for making that statement. I guess---maybe if we can have the question reframed I can understand whats being elicited and then object properly. THE COURT: Alright, very good.
Ms. Taitz response to Mr. Joels objection. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: We have a situation where nobody---. Evidentiary response to his objection. Mr. Black We---. Im sorry Ms. Taitz. One of the two of you. Its me, Your Honor.
I didnt understand an evidentiary objection at this point. I think if shes allowed to continue before we offer this can be cleared up. THE COURT: I think the evidentiary objection is this witness
lacks personal knowledge. I believe thats the bottom line. Mr. Black do you want to address that? MR. BLACK: The exhibit as I understand it contains a cover 49
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
letter, file stamped July 29th, 2010, to Mr. Strunk from a State Department official. THE COURT: The exhibit is not in evidence, has not been offered
in evidence. The witness is testifying based on that---. MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: Your Honor also there is an exception----. Under 902 Your Honor the opening 13 words are
extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissiability is not required. And within Juan we---it refers to, at the station by an officer having illegal custody of the record. That will come to you, and perhaps this is premature, through the cover letter which I address. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: Response, Mr. Joel? Your Honor, I guess I go back to I guess I dont
understand what the purpose and whats he trying to say. If he reading off piece of paper its clearly hearsay. If hes---I mean maybe you could rephrase the question and we can get around this but. THE COURT: Counsel would you agree that this document, again
the document which I believe is titled Certification and Declaration of Christopher Earl Strunk, this document will counsel agree is an uncertified document. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: Mr. Black: Ah---. In accordance with the trial. Yes, its not certified. Ms. Taitz, Mr. Black. Its not a certified document Well the certification by Mr. Strunk is certified. Mr. Black. Black. 50
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 person that--the records.
MR. BLACK: THE COURT:
The cover letter Not a certified document by the custodian and of
MR. BLACK:
It is not a certified document of the custodian with
a seal. But as I read 9021 Your Honor is---. MS. TAITZ: Its certified the signature and the name of the
MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: THE COURT:
It may be---. provided the document Jonathan Rolbin, director It may be---. Alright, this is the Courts ruling.
And this is a unusual ruling in that the document has not been offered into evidence and yet the witness is testifying from the document, from a record that he has reviewed. So, the courts records under 902 and under 803, I want to say 6, or thereabouts -- my numbers escape me -- from memory. The document is not admissible should it be offered. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: I would---. Ms. Taitz let me finish my ruling.
Therefore the testimony by this witness as to the contents of the document purportedly to be offered for the truth of the matter is not admissible. The document would be admissible as evidence that this witness did correspond and receive a response by a certain agency. But the truth of the matter contained in the document is not admissible for the purposes offered by the witnesses. Is that clear to both of you?
51
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: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MR. BLACK:
Yes, Your Honor. That is the Courts ruling. Yes. Under 902 and 8036, I think. If I---. Your Honor if we may make an offer of proof-Yes you may. that---which will readdress very briefly.
The offer of proof is that Rule 9021 only requires the officer of the State Department to attest to the documents being offered and we believe we can show you that the attestation is met. We do not have a certified copy in the conventional sense but 9021 has been created for this reason with respect to domestic documents and we will try again Your Honor if we may. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: Mr. Joel please respond to Mr. Black--Your honor. offer of proof. Yeah, Im looking at the letter and then the
documents that supposedly came with the letter. Again theres no---theres certification, theres no attestation. We dont know who Jonathan Rolbin is or may or may not be. I mean theres just no way to verify or test to the authenticity of the letter or any of the documents behind it. If its offer for the truth of the matter asserted, which I think is the only reason that it might even questionably be relevant, it inadmissible. Any other point, its not relevant.
52
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:
The Court has made its ruling.
I will say this, Ms. Taitz this witness certainly may testify as to matters within his own personal knowledge. Im not precluding the witness to testify as to matters within his personal knowledge. To the extent hes relied on inadmissible evidence--MR. JOEL: THE COURT: We would make a motion to strike that. the only person who can do that is an expert and
there are certain expert exceptions. Secondly, counsel there is a recent case on just this very issue. On a requirement for authentic, authenticit, I cant talk. On certification in order to get over the threshold of admissibility. I think that case is like, I want to say, the last three months at some juncture should be have a break counsel can certainly--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Your Honor if I can---. pull that case and provide it to the Court or
certainly enlighten the court on its ruling. But we have to proceed. Ms Taitz you ready to go on with your question? MS. TAITZ: Yes and if I may request you have stated that in
terms of certification the letter and the document has certification from Jonathan Rolbin, Director of Office--THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Ms. Taitz the Court has made it ruling on that. No, no. Go your question. If I may---if I may just ask if the Court will accept
an additional proof in terms of the fact that indeed Mr. Jonathan Rolbin is indeed the
53
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
Director of Office of Legal Affairs and Law Enforcement Liaison. THE COURT: Ms. Taitz, theres no way that we have the proof of
that before us this morning. Unless you have Mr., whats the name you just identified. Do you have him-MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: made its ruling. If you have the document---the keeper of the document, the custodian of the record here ready to testify than yes I would agree with you. Its my understanding you dont have, the Court has made its ruling and were ready to move on. Were wasting time here. So---. MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: with you and just sit---. THE COURT: offered--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: purported exhibit that we--MS. TAITZ: We would like to offer it into---. 54 Okay. as an exhibit. You Honor---. Youre dealing with only this witness testifying to a It has not---. Heres the problem. It has not been I just want to make one point Your Honor. Okay. On the offer of proof if we could leave the exhibit Mr. Rolbin Do you have him present? I dont and---. Then were---we moved past that issue. The Courts
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: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ:
have no assurances--Yes---. of the authenticity or the truthfulness of it. Your Honor---. The Courts made it ruling. Your Honor, I would like to offer it into evidence
only for the proof indeed Mr. Strunk personally received this letter from the State Department and he has personal knowledge. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Ms. Taitz have your marked the exhibit? Yes P1. It is marked [unintelligible] P1. P1, Your Honor. And I will go to the next witness. And This will be plaintiffs exhibit 1. Yes, Your Honor That you wish to offer. Yes, plaintiffs 1. Alright so I have an offer.
Do you have copy marked by the Court Reporter? MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Reporter and marked. MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: Yes. And, Your Honor, if I may speak to my offer of I---. We have to have a copy presented to the Court
proof. As the offer is exhibit P1, under 9011 we submit with respect, has been attested
55
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
to by the State Department Officer we mentioned. THE COURT: Alright. I have an offer of exhibit P1.
Mr. Joel any objection to the admission of plaintiffs 1? MR. JOEL: Yes Your Honor.
Number one, it hasnt been---. Number one, its hearsay. Number two, its not relevant given what the challenges that remain before you. Number three, any of the exhibits past the declaration where Mr. Strunk apparently signed have not been certified, have not been authenticated. In the absence of those it has absolutely no relevance to this matter whatsoever. It cant be offered for the truth of the matter asserted so therefore. And if it cant be offered for the truth of the matter asserted how is it possibly relevant that this gentleman corresponded with the Federal government and got something. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: Alright I mean the mere fact of his correspondence with
the Federal government is not relevant to the issues here. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: May I respond? Ms. Taitz, yes. According to rules of evidence, rule 1003 there is
an exception to admissibility of duplicates. If the other party has the document and--or if---if---if---if the---if the original in possession of opponent. In this case, the government has the original and we have tried previously to subpoena representatives of different departments who are stonewalling---. THE COURT: Ms. Taitz I dont mean to cut you off. But 1003, 56
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
does not apply at all. It only covers duplicates of originals that were offered by the other side. Read the rule. Im going to sustain the objection. The document is not admissible for the purposes of the truth of the matter asserted therein. Okay. It may, now Im not precluding this ruling, be offered for other purposes. I dont know what other purposes that may be. At this juncture the document being offered for the truth of the matter contained therein and is not admissible. MR. JOEL: MS. TAITZ: Thank you, Your Honor. So I will---so I will ask that Mr.--- just as---as a
proof of fact just that Mr. Strunk---. THE COURT: question. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: MR. JOEL: cross examination of Mr. Strunk. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: I had no direct either. Fair enough. Please. Identify this witness please. Yes, Felicito. Mr. Felicito Papa. Okay. Youre losing time Ms. Taitz. Yes, Im calling the next witness. Mr. Felicito Papa. Your Honor, just so its clear on the record I had no We already made proof. Lets move on to your next
Just---you---take the witness. THE COURT: Is it Mr. dePapa? 57
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 stand---
MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT:
Papa. Last name is Papa. Papae First name is Felicito Pa Pa p a e Alright.
Mr. Papa 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. PAPA: THE COURT: Yes maam, I do. Please be seated.
Now Ms. Taitz. Typically you do not dismiss a witness without the Courts permission. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Sorry, Your Honor. So Im forewarning you we have rules--Yes. And a witness may not just get up and leave the
MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: consenting and courts consent. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT:
Yes. as Mr. Strunk did without opposing counsel
Im sorry Your Honor. So going forward Im warning you that any attempt
to usurp the court rules may be contempt. MS. TAITZ: Okay. 58
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 Honor?
THE COURT: MS. TAITZ:
Alright, go ahead. Mr. Papa. Would you like to swear him Your
MR. JOEL: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: MR. PAPA:
She already did. Oh, Im sorry. I thought I did. You did, you did your---. I did swear him? I thought you did. I thought I did too. Were you sworn in, Mr. Papa? Yes, I was sworn in.
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. PAPA BY MS TAITZ MS. TAITZ: name for the record. MR. PAPA: Okay. My name is Felicito E. Papa. Papa spelled P a Please state your full name and spell your last
p a. And I--I graduated ITT Institute here in Indianapolis, Indiana with a Bachelors degree in Information Technology and we studied Adobe software and Photoshop---. MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: Objection, Your Honor. Mr. Joel. First of all, I just want to make sure that its clear
we are continuing to object to any witnesses based on our Motion to Vacate. I think thats clear and if everybody agrees on the record now that I dont have to keep stating that [unintelligible] more than happy to MS. TAITZ: Ill---. 59
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 o.
MR. BLACK: MR. JOEL:
We agree. I guess--- I guess would ask if---. I think the
question was what was your name and I think it would be more appropriate if Ms. Taitz actually formulated additional questions that she think may be relevant to give me a chance to object before the witness just starts a narrative. THE COURT: I understand.
Ms. Taitz do you understand Mr. Joels--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Yes request? In other words the witness must answer
the question, which is his name, but he cant just go on and off voluntarily--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: I under---. additional information--Sure---. without a question being put.
Now I want to stop here just for a moment. Mr. Papa will you spell, for the record, your first name. MR. PAPA: The first name is Felicito. Its spelled as F e l i c i t
THE COURT: MR. PAPA: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ:
Alright.Thank you, Mr. Papa. Yes, maam. Go ahead Ms. Taitz. May I approach the bench and--Yes you may. [unintelligible]
Mr. Papa and you---I see you have an enlargement here.

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
Is that a copy of long form birth certificate for Mr. Obama that he posted online on whitehouse.gov? Did you personally download it? MR. PAPA: MS. TAITZ: Yes maam I did. Im going to the next page.
Is that one of the layers that you got from the birth certificate? MR. JOEL: Objection Your Honor.
I guess the objection is if he wants to testify that he went on a website and did something thats one thing. But if he starts trying to testify that this is what he received etc., it hasnt been certified, its hearsay, its not relevant. All the issues that we just discussed with Mr. Strunk would apply also Mr. Papa. Basically, hes sitting here just like Mr. Strunk tried to do hes starting to read from documents that havent been admitted. Theyre hearsay. They havent been authenticated. We have no way to judge one way or the other what they are. THE COURT: MR. BLACK: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Joel. Your Honor Im on the evidence.
This is a birth certificate certified by the Registrar of the State of Hawaii. Its an exception to the hearsay rule under two rules. 8036, Vital Statistics and Birth and 9011, a domestic document attested to by Dr. OCona (sic). Its in the exhibits. Has been since March. Its been well known to the State. This is the alleged certificate of birth the White House put out on the airwaves in April of 11, open to the public and downloaded by our witnesses as hes permitted to do and testify to. So it is authenticated by the Department of Hawaii the VHT who signature appears in front. MR. JOEL: Your Honor, if I understood the first question was
whether and---. Theyre purporting the top page was downloaded from a White
61
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
House website as Obamas birth certificate. Everything thats after that is not. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Alright I mean its just not. Heres the problem were running into. And I
understand and respect your objections but theyre being offered prematurely. I have no document offered. So could we just--MR. JOEL: THE COURT: And, and---. get through and make our objections at the proper
time. I have no offer to admit the document yet. That would be the time to make the objection. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: We would do so proper authentication. Ms. Taitz proceed with your question. So Mr. Papa when you downloaded from
whitehouse.gov this document, you downloaded it what computer program did you use to download it? MR. PAPA: with Adobe Illustrator. MS. TAITZ: Yes, thank you. When you opened it, is there the Anybody can download it, but I was able to open it
layer that you personally got in Adobe Illustrator? MR. PAPA: MR. JOEL: MR. BLACK: MR. JOEL: Thats one of the layers---. Objection Your Honor. hes (whispering) Orly identify [unintelligible]. I know it hasnt been technically offered but hes
sitting here talking about, referring to documents and such. He should turn them over---.
62
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:
You know Mr. Joel what I heard thus far is hes
testifying how he downloaded it. He used the Adobe Reader (sic). I dont even know how thats relevant but Im willing to into Ms. Taitzs time that shes using. Lets proceed, Ms Taitz. MS. TAITZ: Mr. Papa, you used---you graduated from Indiana
Institute of Technology, you stated---. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: where he graduated from. MS. TAITZ: Okay. A document that is just a scan of one page Ms. Taitz, frame as a question. Okay Youre testifying on behalf of the witness. I dont
will it come out in layers where you have bits and pieces of the document if its just a scan of one page, from your knowledge of Adobe Illustrator? MR. JOEL: Objection Your Honor he hasnt been identified in
the papers that we were given about their witness [unintelligible] being an expert thats is one. Number two, he hasnt been qualified as an expert in how Adobe works, how the birth certificate may have been uploaded to the White House website. Theres---theres no basis for him to start testifying about these things. I apologize for objecting for the documents offered, but he cant just get up here and say it without having a foundation, without a basis, without have qualifications. I mean he just cant do it. MR. BLACK: Your Honor may I obj---address the witness to
offer exhibit to you under Indiana law. THE COURT: No, first you have to address the objection. 63
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: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: question a retort to the objection. THE COURT: MR. BLACK:
Oh Im sorry. There---. Your Honor, perhaps I can tie in with the next
Address the objection and then well go from there. Your Honor, the objection is not well taken because
of exhibit P2 has been certi---authenticated under the rules by the Registrar of the State of Hawaii and is admissible also become it comes from a real party and interest. The White House, whose president has a stake in this very case and election. So therefore, its admissible for two reasons. Its been authenticated on its face, which is all 9011 requires. And number two, it comes from the White House itself according to this witnesses direct testimony. THE COURT: objection at all. Ill sustain the objection. Go on to the next question. MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, we would like to offer into evidence I dont think that addresses the nature of the
P2 as a document that was downloaded by Mr. Papa from the official website whitehosue.gov from official record. We would like to offer it into evidence. THE COURT: Alright. I have an offer.
Ms. Taitz, would you approach and mark your exhibit. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: P2 Bring it to the Court Reporter, Ms. Taitz. Yes. Thank you. 64
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, I have an offer of plaintiffs 2. MR. JOEL: Yes. Your Honor, we would object.
He hasnt been qualified in any way shape or form to give testimony to authenticate any of the pages beyond the first one. If hes testifying that the first page is what came off when he downloaded from the website, that is President Obamas birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu. Everything else is something he manipulated with Adobe Illustrator or Acrobat or something. I mean Ill admit I dont have a clue as to how any of that stuff works. He hasnt been qualified as an expert. He cant provide any testimony regarding any of the other pages. Some of these pages in here arent even President Obamas birth certificate if you continue to the back.So there is just no basis for admitting anything. First of all, anything because its not relevant to the issues that remain. But certainly nothing beyond the first page. The first page shows that President Obama was born in Honolulu. THE COURT: MR. BLACK: Mr. Black? Yes to relevance Your Honor. Under rhetorical
paragraph 14 of the Complaint, this is the White Houses attempt eighteen months ago to prove the birth in Hawaii and the natural born citizen of Barack Obama. Number two, as to qualifications for Mr. Papa, for all pages after number one I would ask you to allow us qualify him to do that. THE COURT: This is the Courts ruling.
The Court will admit the plaintiffs P2---well plaintiffs exhibit 2 as certified document provided by the State Registrar to the extent that the document is admitted as a certified document. Well its in evidence. MR. BLACK: Thank you, Judge. 65
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 first page?
MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MR. JOEL:
Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you Can I ask one clarification, is that all of it or just the
THE COURT: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ:
All of it. Thank you, Judge. Thank you, Your Honor.
Yeah. Mr. Papa, can you explain to the Court please how did you get further pages? What software did you use? What is your qualifications in using the software? MR. JOEL: Its compound. I mean---. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: MR. PAPA: MS. TAITZ: Adobe Illustrator. MR. PAPA: MS. TAITZ: MR. PAPA: Over ten years. What is your educational experience in this area? I worked with [unintelligible] with IT Tech Sustained. Well---. Sustained. What software did you use? I used Adobe Illustrator to open it. Okay, how many years have you been working with Objection, Your Honor. He has to be qualified first.
International, IT Tech Institute in Indianapolis, Indiana. And then I hold a degree in Information Technologies. MS. TAITZ: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Papa. 66
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
So as somebody who has a degree in Information Technologies and whos been using this software---software for many years is that your opinion that when a document opens in so many layers where bits and pieces showing different layers is that your opinion that is it genuine or is it a forgery? MR. JOEL: Objection Your Honor. Theres no basis for him to
make that conclusion even if you could be an expert on how, on Adobe Illustrator. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: a qualified expert. MS. TAITZ: Okay from your experience, if a document comes Sustained. And were not conceding that point either Sustained even before response. This witness is not
from one page and you open it from---in Adobe Illustrator will it come up in one layer or will it come up in many layers? MR. JOEL: Same objection Your Honor. This is getting into
expert testimony. He hasnt been qualified as such. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: This is a little more borderline. I---. Mr. Black your response? My response is, Your Honor, that hes qualified by
his degree and his modus operandi to comment as to her question. THE COURT: Well that wasnt her question and he has not been
qualified as any sort of expert here either by degree or training or professional skills at all. The question was in your experience that was the question. MS. TAITZ: Yes 67
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:
So that calls only upon, in my mind, his personal
experience with using Adobe Reader (sic). How thats relevant Im not certain. Ill allow the question. MR. BLACK: counsel to discuss this. MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Would you like to you can rephrase the question. Ill try. Sir So Wait a minute. Hold on were going to stay with Could I, Your Honor, have ninety seconds with my
one or the other your answered to response to the evidentiary---. MR. BLACK: questioning, Your Honor. MR. JOEL: dont have a problem with that. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Fine Im going to ask---your knowledge from---what Im If, if they want to take time and confer Judge we I was going to confer with her about the
asking is, from your education and from your work with a specific program for ten years, what---what is---what is your knowledge based on your work experience of ten years with this program. If it comes from one page will it open in one layer or will it open in multiple layers? MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Objection. Im not sure I understand the question. Im not sure I understand--If they can rephrase. the question either. A doc---. 68
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: MS. TAITZ:
Will you rephrase Ms. Taitz. Okay.
(quietly) You want to ask the question? If it is---if it is a genuine document that if you take a piece of paper and then scan it and then open this one piece of paper in Adobe Illustrator will it come up as one page, one layer? Yes or No? MR. PAPA: When you scan a document normally it will come
only as one solid image with lots of layer. But when the, when there---when it shows as sublayers it will take a something. All this document funny, why does it have so many layers on top of it. So its like prima facie evidence that this is---this document is not a orig--- its only recent document. Its not an original document. Because when you have an original document like here---. MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: that his statement be stricken. THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: Mr. Your Honor Im sorry, Mr. Black your response. Its purely factual. Its not a conclusion of anything Objection, Your Honor. Im sorry. He starting to get---. State your objection. Hes starting to get into conclusions and Id ask
in terms of law. Hes qualified and laid status to what hes observed and learned in his experience. Thats factual.
69
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:
That wasnt what he was saying. He was getting
into that this shows forgery, manipulated, things such that [unintelligible]--MS. TAITZ: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Your Honor those are conclusions. Alright, heres the Courts ruling.
Ill allow the witness to answer the question. The question certainly cant draw conclusions of law or any conclusions--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Thank you, Your Honor. the court, that is in the purview of the court. Ill
allow the witness to answer the question. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Okay, so can you please state to the court when---. Ask the question. If it is a document that just came from one piece of
paper, if its not manipulated, if its not pieces that came from here and there and put together, if its just one document when you open it in Adobe Illustrator will it be in one layer or will it be in multiple layers? MR. PAPA: with no sublayers. MS. TAITZ: Yes, and if you have a situation where a document It will only be in one solid layer, one solid image
is created on a computer, where a person who created a document will put parts from here and from there and from different areas and you open it will it come up with multiple layers? MR. JOEL: MR. PAPA: THE COURT: Objection Your Honor. [unintelligible] Yes maam. Hold on. 70
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 MR. JOEL: Hes calling---theyre---Ms. Taitz is calling for
conclusions. He hasnt been qualified as an expert. Now theyre trying to say that bits and pieces of things were manufactured and manipulated. He has no basis for that testimony what so ever. MR. BLACK: Your Honor, the only test of an expert is whether
he has experience or training superior to the average ken of the juror. He has that experience and training. He can---hes qualified THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: Now to answer that question. Mr. Black youre asserting that. But weve no
foundation laid in the record of this witnesss experience and training to give testimony as to his conclusion regarding how to tell whether a document has multiple layers. We have no foundation in the record. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Mr. Papa---. So the Court will sustain the objection. Mr. Papa would you like---can you please explain
to the court what is the basis for your conclusion, from your education and from your work experience, what is the basis for your conclusion that a document that came from one piece of paper will not open in multiple layers. Can you---can you ex---can you elaborate to the Court please? MR. JOEL: MS. TAITZ: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Objection, Your Honor. Its the same question--You Honor---. you just sustained the objection to. Sustained. 71
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 Ms. Taitz, Im not certain you understand what it takes to lay a foundation for a witness so lets move on. MR. BLACK: MR. BLACK: Can I have a second Your Honor (whispering) Do you---do you have this as an
exhibit? Do you have this as an exhibit? MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: Taitz. Ms. Taitz is--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: I, I will---. in charge. Youre just responding to the (whispering) Uh huh. (whispering) Do you have that? (whispering) Yeah its here. (whispering) Its in here? May I approach the witness Your Honor? You may. Its the first page. Here Your Honor, may I see P2 please? No, no here. Its---there is a Whats [unintelligible] Yeah, its P2. This is P2A. May I address the witness Your Honor? We have---Im sorry we have direct going by Ms.
evidentiary. Now if you two want to switch that at some point,--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Yes I want to switch. we cant--72
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 memory,---
MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: other is fine with me. MR. BLACK:
for the moment Yes. Were not going to double team--Sure. the opposition. One for one purpose, one for the
For this witness, Your Honor, could I take direct
and comment on the evidence. Just me. THE COURT: No. You may not comment on the evidence until
closing and then you may portray the evidence in the light most favorable to your client, but not during the trial. Now Ms. Taitz do you have an additional question? I think we moved beyond the evidentiary ruling. Do you have additional examination of this witness? MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: Do you want to take? I think---. (whispering) Show him The Courts last ruling, if I may refresh your
MR. BLACK: THE COURT:
(whispering) show him the exhibits. was based upon failure to establish this witnesses
qualifications to testify as an expert. MR. BLACK: Your Honor, if I may, she going to continue the
examination and Im going to comment on the evidence if thats all right with the--respond to the objections if thats alright with the Court. THE COURT: Thats they way weve been proceeding.
Ms. Taitz you next question. MS. TAITZ: (whispering) You do it. 73
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 website website. this?
MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ:
(whispering) No, no you do it. [unintelligible] Mr. Papa, can you please say to the court what is
MR. JOEL: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MR. PAPA:
Your Honor, I havent seen a copy of this. You have it, you have it too. Oh I apologize. This is the exhibit 2A as in alpha. 2A as in alpha. This is the image I was able to download from the
THE COURT:
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Ms. Taitz, why are we offering this witness this exhibit? Why are, why are we handing the exhibit to the witness? MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: This is---. Whats the purpose?
[Ms. Taitz and Mr. Black whispering] MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: ask whether he might identify it. THE COURT: MR. PAPA: Alright. Witness will identify the document. This is the document I was able to download from (whispering) Do you want to speak? (whispering) Yeah. I believe Mr. Black---Mr. Black wanted to speak. Showing the exhibit to the witness Your Honor to
MS. TAITZ: MR. PAPA: opened it with Adobe Illustrator.
(whispering) No of the White House, I downloaded it and then I
74
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. PAPA: THE COURT: MR. PAPA: Barack Obama. THE COURT:
It doesnt tell me what the exhibit it is, sir. It---it---this What is it? It shows the name Certificate of Live Birth of Mr.
Okay. This is the document that the witness
testified he downloaded from the website, White House web site. It is a document titled or known as live birth certificate. MR. PAPA: THE COURT: Yes maam. Alright.
Next question Ms. Taitz. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: What is this page? MR. JOEL: Im sorry could they clarify---I dont know when I believe Mr. Black---. Mr. Black--Mr. Black is continuing. No, no. Mr. Black--Okay. is not continuing. Okay. Mr. Black has--Okay. Sure. Mr. Ms. Taitz your next question. Can you identify the next page on this exhibit?
she says this page what shes talking about.

75
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 document?
MS. TAITZ:
He identified this, thats what Mr. Obama is claims
to be his real birth certificate. Then he is identifying this page. What is this? He is identifying, he is testifying to his personal knowledge. What is this page? Can you please state to the court what is this? MR. PAPA: MR. JOEL: MR. PAPA: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Its Im not sure---. one of the layers Objection. How can he have personal knowledge. Well--He---. I mean he can tell Hold on, time out.
At this juncture were just asking the witness to identify the document to give us some indication of why the witness wants to present the document. Well get there. MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Hold on Mr. Joel. Ms. Taitz, the question to the witness was it the second page? MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: Yes, second page. (quietly) First page, first page. And you asked the witness to identify this OK, Im---Im---. Ms. Taitz.
Yes Where did this document come from? 76
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 it.
MS. TAITZ: MR. PAPA:
Yes, where did it come from? It came from the same document of the Certificate
of Live Birth of Mr., Mr. Barack Obama. Thats one of the layers. I found at least nine layers. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Next question Ms. Taitz. Is there a third page? Okay. Yes.
The cover of this document is that your affidavit, you provided? On the top it says Im a professional web developer having graduated with a bachelorss degree in IT MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Objection, Your Honor. Ms. Taitz, youre not the witness.
If you have a question for the witness pose the question. MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. PAPA: (whispering) ask him to identify the first page. Can you identify please this first page? The front page is my affidavit. That Im a
professional web developer and than I have over ten years of experience as a web designer and developer. MR. JOEL: Your Honor, objection. The question was identify
Im sorry that I have to keep objecting before things get technically moved, but this is my fear that we just start getting a narrative, narrative, narrative and I need to perfect the record. THE COURT: I understand that.
Mr. Black response. And the response is really to the witness just reading from the front of the document.
77
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 his affidavit?
MR. BLACK:
All---all we are trying to do is have him identify his
affidavit Your Honor. Thats my response. THE COURT: Well hes here testifying.
The fact that he made an affidavit may be interesting to all of us. Im not sure its relevant since hes on the witness stand currently. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Your Honor, Im---Im---. Lets proceed with the next question. Im moving---well---well---. Would it be the witnesss testimony that is in fact
MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ:
Yes. Okay. Lets move on. So, now according to this affidavit you personally
obtained this document. You downloaded from White House. You opened in Adobe Illustrator and you got those layers. MR. JOEL: Objection, Your Honor.
First of all shes testifying, leading. Hes here on the stand. Its---this--the affidavit hearsay. I mean he can testify if its something thats relevant and admissible etc. but he cant just be reading---. THE COURT: I dont have the affidavit in front of me. My
assumption was it was this witnesss affidavit. Is that the case? MS. TAITZ: MR. JOEL: Felicito Papa at the bottom. THE COURT: Hes just testified under oath that it was his 78 Yes it is. Well, I cant read his signature but it does say
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
affidavit. All right? So, once we established that this particular piece of paper is his affidavit he made at some point--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: I would like---. Were done with it. We have the witness on the
stand for questioning regarding anything that counsel deems is admissible and relevant to this case. Ms. Taitz your next question. MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: attached pages. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: hes on the stand. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: important thing. MR. JOEL: And therefore theres no need for it and I mean, if Well--So its hearsay. Im not sure hearsay is the proper objection--Its a matter---. but the witness is here on the stand. Thats the Mr. Joel any? Yes, Your Honor. The affidavits hearsay. I mean Im moving this affidavit into evidence as--2A as 2A affidavit of Mr. Felicito Papa with the two
he wants---I think as part of two you already introduced---. You already accepted into evidence the two pages that are on back of the affidavit as part of exhibit 2. MS. TAITZ: Your Honor. 79
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: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ:
I have not, have I? I thought you did. Yes. Yes. [unintelligible] your right, Over our--Your right. objection I believe you did. Okay. Thank you. Your Honor, we just going--Let me, let me. to move into evidence with testimony of witness in
regards testimony in regards to the exhibit that was already admitted into evidence. THE COURT: Okay. Im going to have to charge here because its
clear that we dont have good handle on the rules of evidence. The witness is here, theres no need to admit the affidavit. The witness is on the stand subject to cross examination and direct examination. There is no need to admit the affidavit. Thats the affidavit portion. MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Correct The other documents behind the affidavit I thought
counsel just told me were included in or part of exhibit 2. Is that correct? MR. BLACK: THE COURT: Thats right. The ruling is the affidavit is not admissible. The
witness is here and subject to cross examination. Ms. Taitz your next question.
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 or--Your Honor.
MR. BLACK:
Your Honor may I just make an offer. Were
offering his affidavit as background to save time authenticated by him. THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: This is a trial, Mr. Black. True it is. Alright. Now the Courts made it ruling.
Now just so Im certain since I ruled that the affidavit is not admissible have we marked that to make sure. Yeah, they have called it 2A. I think. Mr. Black you referred my court reporter MR. BLACK: Yes, Your Honor thats its.
[Taitz and Black are whispering continuously as Judge speaks.] THE COURT: mark this as plaintiffs3. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: the court reporter please MS. TAITZ: Excuse me Your Honor. Mark what as plaintiffs 3, Okay. Ms. Taitz mark this as plaintiffs 3 and approach referred to in the record as plaintiffs 3. So can we
THE COURT:
The affidavit will be marked as plaintiffs 3 not 2a
but plaintiffs 3. Please approach and lets mark it as such and it will in the record if not admitted. MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, I dont know if we already established
Mr. Papa has explained affidavit, plaintiffss 2, he explained how he got it. He explained this to the Court. Mr.---. THE COURT: Ms. Taitz, this is question time, not your remarks
81
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 and Mr. Black whispering over the court] THE COURT: your testimony or your summary of the evidence.
Ms. Taitz pay attention to the court. Next question for this witness. MS. TAITZ: I move to qualify Mr. Papa as an expert in Adobe
Illustrator based on his education and work experience. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: Mr. Joel? You honor we object to his being qualified as an
expert in Adobe Illustrator. Whats more even if he were, it wouldnt be---theyve not offered nor is he qualified to give any sort of expert conclusion or opinion as to the authenticity of Mr. Barack Obamas birth certificate. THE COURT: Heres the Courts ruling. Im going to have to cut
your short and counsel you can check during the break. If Courts memory serves me correctly the motion or moving to qualify a witness was done away years ago. We do not move to qualify. Gone. Has been gone for a number of year. I believe, you certainly can check the courts opinion against case law thats out there. The Court will deny the request to move to qualify this witness based on what I understand the case law represents. So counsel is this a good time to take a break in the proceedings. And maybe we should have a discussion about how much more time if any--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: MR. JOEL: Yes and where we need to go from here. Yes Thats fine Your Honor. 82
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:
Alrights take about a ten minute break and well go
off the record and meanwhile the admonitions to the witnesses remain in effect. [Court resumes] THE COURT: Alright we back on the record.
Court resumes in the matter of Orly Taitz et al. and the Elections Commission et al.. Court will note for the record that all parties and counsel are present in the courtroom. We do have a separation of witness order. We do have a order to turn off cell phones and no videotaping or cameras in the courtroom. Okay, when we took our brief recess we were on direct examination by Ms. Taitz of the witness Mr. Papa. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Mr. Papa Go ahead Ms. Taitz. What Im trying to do, Im trying to laid a
foundation for your knowledge in this area. So Im asking you what is your education specifically in the area of Information Technology and Adobe Illustrator. MR. PAPA: Okay, with a---ITT Technical Institute we were
taught the use of Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator. So they taught us how to use them, how to manipulate the images and how to compose images. MS. TAITZ: After your graduated from ITT for how many years
did you work with this particular program Adobe Illustrator? MR. PAPA: I used it for over ten years with various companies;
designing web sites for them. And I also used it in my own personal work. I did my web site for myself too. So I have at least ten years of experience with Adobe Illustrator. MS. TAITZ: So Mr. Papa, based on your education in Adobe 83
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
Illustrator in the Institute of Technology, Indiana Institute Of Technology and your years of experience what does it mean when you open a document and you see multiple layers? Can you say? Can you say? MR. JOEL: I would object, Your Honor. I dont think hes
qualified to give that sort of testimony or conclusion. MR. BLACK: Your Honor, he had courses in the Adobe
Illustrator. Hes learned about the piece of machinery and equipment. MR. JOEL: Theres also no basis for him to testify what it could
possible mean in this case. Has he---whats his methodology for example. Has he--has he done this analysis of other birth certificates that were uploaded? Has he done this analysis of other birth certificates from the State of Hawaii that were uploaded? Has he compared Mr. Obamas to others in Hawaii, etc.? He hasnt taken any sort of statistical sampling of generally admitted authentic birth certificates and made any sort of comparison at all. So there is no basis for him to testify to any sort of conclusion on that point. MR. BLACK: THE COURT: here. First is the witnesss skill, experience and training that would tend to qualify him as an expert. And secondly, if the witness is going to offer opinion about a specific document it would be some acceptable methodology that the Court could consider in determining whether such evidence was scientifically or reliable evidence. So we have two thresholds. One establishing the training and expertise and I have heard just Ive been using Adobe for ten years. I do not have any evidence, any testimony as to--UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1
Goes to weight. We have an two prong question, two prong issue
84
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 Technology.
You honor his certification, as to the degrees, as to acceptable
levels in the community and then secondly I dont know what methodology. I have no idea as to what methodology was employed in order for this witness to testify for him to determine there were layers. Layers--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: You honor--were used in determining.
Ms Taitz, in that regard I will sustain or note counsel, opposing counsels objection because were not there yet. Continue with your examination of this witness. MS. TAITZ: You honor when---Im sorry Mr. Papa, what degree
did you get in Information Technology? MR. PAPA: I have a Bachelors degree in Information
MS. TAITZ:
Did you--within your degree did you receive
specifically training on Adobe Illustrator program? MR. PAPA: Yes, on both Adobe Photoshop and Abode
Illustrator. We specific training on how to use them. How to manipulate images and how to create the signs. MS. TAITZ: When you are saying manipulate images can you
please explain to the Court how---what specifically do you do in order to get a multiple layers in a image in Adobe Illustrator? MR. PAPA: When you create the signs for the website or even
for hard copy, you place images on top of each other. These images when placed on top of each other become layers under Illustrator, Adobe Illustrators. And what
85
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
happened I open the website and when these layer showed up it showed that this website was designed by Adobe Illustrator which did not exist yet in the year 1961. So it only about---this Adobe software is only about ten years old. MS. TAITZ: MR. JOEL: question was. MR. BLACK: THE COURT: objection. MR. BLACK: It was very responsive to the question. He May I respond, Your Honor. Yes you may. Yes you may. Respond. To the So---. Objection, Your Honor way beyond what the
answered the question as to multiple layers THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. JOEL: Im going to overrule the objection. Thank you Your Honor (whispering) Why dont you let him go. Yeah. We are done with this witness, Your Honor. Alright. Cross? (whispering) Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, I guess before I go to cross I would
move that any conclusion he has reached--I dont think hes reached any. So Im not sure how to note that objection. I just wanted to make sure THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: Im not sure either, counsel. But I want to make sure its on there. I think you should just ask your question on cross. Okay. 86
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
CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. PAPA BY MR. JOEL MR. JOEL: Isnt it true that youve never gone to Honolulu and
actually physically observed the birth certificate in the State of Hawaii MR. PAPA: MR. JOEL: Say that again please. Isnt it true that youve never gone to the State of
Hawaii and personally observed the birth certificate? MS. TAITZ: MR. JOEL: show that hes never looked at---. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: MR. PAPA: document. MR. JOEL: Okay. Isnt it true that you have never observed any Overruled. You can answer. I wasnt sent to Honolulu to observe the original Objection, relevance. Im trying to lead up to a couple of questions to
other birth certificate that is admittedly genuine in the State of Hawaii? MR. PAPA: Not in that State of Hawaii but Ive seen the web
site like the birth certificates of the Nordyke sisters. MR. JOEL: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: That wasnt my question. Have you ever---. It is State of Hawaii. Nordyke is State of Hawaii. [unintelligible] Sorry. Ms. Taitz, you want to lodge an objection, note
youre lodging an objection. You cant just interject your opinion into this examination. So did you have and objection Ms. Taitz? MS. TAITZ: I just wanted to clarify that what Mr. Papa just said 87
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
Nordyke he---. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: here. I listen. Okay Mr. Joel. MR. JOEL: because Im not sure he did. Isnt it true that you havent gone to Hawaii and viewed any authentic, any birth certificate whatsoever in the State of Hawaii? MR. PAPA: MR. JOEL: That true, Ive never been to Hawaii. And isnt it true that you have not reviewed any I just want to make sure he answered the question No, you dont need to clarify--Okay. what the witness has testified to. Witnesses testify
birth certificates from the State of Hawaii other than what you say you got off the website of the White House with regards to any other person in the state of Hawaii. MS. TAITZ: Objection, he just said Nordyke. He did view.
Objection. Mr. Papa testified and stated that he did view another birth certificate Nordyke. So the question hes trying to tell him something opposite of what he just said. MR. JOEL: THE COURT: need to do. MR. JOEL: Let me try. Let me see if I can rephrase that. Yes, that would be great. I think thats what we
If I understand you correctly Mr. Papa, you claim that you went to the White House website and downloaded President Obamas birth certificate. MR. PAPA: Yes I did.
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 website?
MR. JOEL:
You mentioned something with respect to
Nordyke. Did you download that from the White house website? MR. PAPA: MR. JOEL: No I didnt. Did you download that document from any
MR. PAPA: MR. JOEL: MR. PAPA: over the internet and I---. MR. JOEL:
Yes, I did. You downloaded it from a website, which one? There are multiple websites, they are spread all
Did you have any basis for knowing how those
websites are kept, maintained or operated? MR. PAPA: MR. JOEL: No, I dont. Did you have any basis to how the White House
website is kept, maintained or operated? MR. PAPA: MR. JOEL: No, I dont know. Other than the Nordyke have you viewed any other
birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, downloading that from another website? MR. PAPA: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: No. Nothing else, Judge. Alright any redirect?
Redirect of Mr. Papa by Ms. Taitz MS. TAITZ: Mr. Papa you mentioned Nordyke. Is that a birth
certificate from the State of Hawaii? MR. PAPA: MR. JOEL: Thats true. Objection, how could he know that. He just 89
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
admitted he has no personal knowledge. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: on no personal knowledge. MR. JOEL: He had no personal knowledge of the Nordyke. He Wouldnt that---. Hold on. Ive got to allow her to Thats fine. response to the objections, to the objections based
admitted he downloaded it off of something. He had no understanding--THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: the door. MR. JOEL: That still---that still doesnt establish his personal Alright he didnt know where. how it was kept or maintained, etc.. Alright. Mr. Black. It was testified to on cross, Your Honor. He opened
knowledge as to any birth certificate. THE COURT: from there. MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: Thanks, Judge. Your Honor, Mr.---Mr. Joel actually just---just If---Ill allow the question in the response. Well go
given us the case because in the questions that he asked basically considered the key, because in the question he ask , Ms. Papa did you go to the State of Hawaii and review---. THE COURT: This is redirect. You ask your questions. I am aware
of Mr. Joels questions and his responses to objections. You ask your questions. MS. TAITZ: Sure. Mr. Papa you, when you responded to Mr.
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
Joel you mentioned Nordyke birth certificate. Is that Nordyke birth certificate that you have in front of you? MR. PAPA: MS. TAITZ: MR. PAPA: Hawaii. MS. TAITZ: Obamas birth certificate. MR. PAPA: MS. TAITZ: Thats true, yes. So Mr. Joel has asked if you know how websites are And thats the same thing that is stated on Mr. Thats correct. What does it state there in the state it was issued? It says that Department of Health the State of
operated including---including White House website. So its equally impossible---so is it your statement than that the---the veracity of whitehouse.gov is basically as valid or invalid as veracity of any---of any website, right? MR. PAPA: MR. JOEL: Thats correct. Objection, Your Honor, he has no basis to testify
about the veracity or non-veracity of something. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Black. Mr. Black response to the objection. MR. BLACK: I think Mr. Papas just saying in so many words Well---. Ms. Taitz. Mr. Black, Im sorry I have to go to Mr.
what he said earlier that he doesnt know veracity or in-veracity. He doesnt know how that website works. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: Well you and Mr. Joel are--Then it thats what he saying I move to strike all of 91
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
his testimony. THE COURT: agreeing.
This witness may not testify as to any veracity of any website. He already previously testified he has no idea about methodology or Im sorry the operation and the three points he brought up so Court will disregard the witnesss response regarding to the veracity of the White Houses website. That is the Courts ruling. Lets go to our next question. MS. TAITZ: Yes, at this point we would, we would like to finish
the examination of this witness and redirect. We are done with the redirect and would like to call the next witness. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Mr. Papa. MR. PAPA: THE COURT: THE COURT: Your Honor. Thank you. Alright. At this juncture as I told counsel during Alright you are finished with this witness. Yes, Your Honor. Alright any objection. The witness may step down.
the break we are going to one oclock. We are stopping at one oclock. If it means midsentence we are stopping at one oclock. Is that clear? MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. To both of you? Yes, Your Honor. Alright.
Call your next witness Ms. Taitz.

92
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 objection. sure.
MR. JOEL:
Your Honor, Im just not sure procedurally given
what happened. I just want to note on the record that we have objected to him to being an expert for any reason. Its--THE COURT: MR. JOEL: [unintelligible] probably already there but I just want to make
MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK:
Please take a seat. And Your Honor, weve stipulated to an ongoing
MS. TAITZ:
Can you please state---you can sit down there---
Mr.---can you---. Your Honor is going swear you and can you state to Your Honor your name please. MR. IREY: THE COURT: Im Paul Irey. Mr. Irey would you raise your right hand.
Do you swear and affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. IREY BY MS. TAITZ MS. TAITZ: Mr. Irey can you please state for the court your full
name and spelling of your last name. MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: your professional background. MR. IREY: THE COURT: MR. IREY: Okay. I wanted [unintelligible] my---. Would the witness please have a seat. Sit? Okay. 93 Paul Irey. I r e y Mr. Irey can you please state for the court what is
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 years---. dealing---
THE COURT: MR. IREY:
We need you near the microphone. Oh, right. Okay.
I started with service in the Air Force which is part of my background because they made me a clerk typist filling out forms for four years. Two or which were years at the National Security Agency where I had a Top Secret clearance. And then when I left the Air Force, I wound up in Manhattan working for Hearst Publications and then various jobs in advertising agencies until 1968 when I started my own business, Burton Graphics, right across the river in New Jersey. And there I produced typography and full graphics for many customers including; well we did for example the Montgomery Ward Catalog. MS. TAITZ: Mr. Irey when you did all of this graphics did you
work with different types of typesetting? MR. IREY: typesetting machines. MS. TAITZ: Did you work with different computer programs Oh yes, yes. Probably four or five different
MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY:
Absolutely. with design typesetting. Photoshop and Illustrator using Macintosh. I have
26 years of experience. From the very beginning of that development I worked with Photoshop. MS. TAITZ: So you said from the Army in the 50s so over 50
MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ:
57 years. 57 years of experience 94
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. IREY: MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY:
Thats correct. with typesetting Thats correct. and---and graphics--Thats correct. and computer graphics. Thats correct and we employ, I employ 60 people Working in this area. Around the clock in the New York metropolitan
area serving copies that werent required advertising. MS. TAITZ: Mr. Irey, did you review what Mr. Obama posted in
April of 2011, what he claims to be a true and correct copy of his long form birth certificate which he claims was created in 1961? Did you review it? MR. IREY: Oh yes. I started to review it at that time and for the
last 18 months. Because Im retired now I done nothing but study that document. MS. TAITZ: And can you please state the Court what did you
find in this document, first in regards to the letters and fonts? I believe you have a big--. MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: Yeah, Id like to have stand for this. Yes, if you can please show to the Court to the
Judge, the letters in this alleged birth certificate. What is your conclusion in regards to fonts and letters? MR. JOEL: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: Objection, Your Honor. You Honor. Just a moment. 95
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: THE COURT: MR. JOEL:
They want to hold it up. State your objection for the record. The question was conclusion. He hasnt qualified
as an expert in anything one.And number two we have nothing about the methodology or what hes going to testify about. I guess I dont understand the question. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: Your objection is the witness has not qualified. Hes not qualified. Also relevancy because the
issues we stated before with regards to the Motion to Vacate and moreover that theres---even if we get to the second prong. Hes not been qualified to offer any conclusions as to the authenticity of a birth certificate number one and number two there has absolutely no attempt-THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Ms. Taitz response. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Mr. Black respond. MR. BLACK: Your Honor, number one the test is whether he has Yes Im sorry, I fouled up again, I apologize. [unintelligible] regarding Let me go to Ms. Taitz.
skill lor training beyond the ken of the average person. And number two I dont think hes really answered that at this point. THE COURT: Im going to overrule the objection.
Witness is just---I think, again were a little ahead, is going to be asked to identify the differences in type.
96
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 certificate? that?
Yes. between the birth certificates and his experience
and the Court would find that this witness is qualified to offer based on 57 years of experience in typesetting--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. and being particularly in that business, this witness
would be qualified as to type. Now beyond that well, well going to decide as we go. MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: Thank you Judge. Mr. Irey, when look at the letter in any document,
regardless birth certificate or anything, would you expect that the letters to be of the same typesetting? MR. IREY: Absolutely and we always proofread our work for
that. If it wasnt right it was corrected. MS. TAITZ: MR. JOEL: Are these---are these--Now, can I---can I come up there so I can look at
THE COURT: MR. JOEL: MS. TAITZ:
Okay. Thank you Judge. Are these enlarged letters from Mr. Obamas birth
MR. IREY: from the birth certificate. MS. TAITZ:
Thats correct, all at one time enlarged to that size
And let this one is easy to see. So in one area of the
birth certificate you marked it number 54. MR. IREY: Thats listed in my reference chart. 97
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:
Letter M, and then 193 we have also letter M which
is somewhere further on in the birth certificate. From your 57 years of experience in typesetting, are those the same letters, are those the same typesetting? MR. IREY: Im also four years experience in typing with a
typewriter and yes this wouldnt happen if it was one typewriter. MS. TAITZ: Next letter S, 201 and 9, from our 57 years of
experience with typesetting would, would you expect letter S to be of the same typesetting? MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY: They absolutely have to be. Is it the same or those are different? Those are different because they came from the
Obama birth certificate. But if a single typewriter typed this document that would not occur. MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY: Letter K. The second K is narrower. No, the first K is
narrower and the second is wider. Same with the Us the first is narrower and the second is wider. All these letters show a great difference, not a small difference. MS. TAITZ: So as somebody who worked with typesetting for
57 years, what is your understanding? Is your understanding that those letters came from one document or they came from different documents? MR. IREY: MR. JOEL: No I can---. Theres no basis to say that. No foundation or
knowledge whatsoever of what Hawaii did back in 1961. How they created these. How this might look as compared to something else that was contemporaneously created back in 1961. Theres no basis for [unintelligible].
98
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:
The question was, Your Honor, what was the
document same or different. Hes eminently qualified to answer that question. THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: Ill allow. Then the thats irrelevant. the question. Ill allow the question. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Irey, is it your opinion after 57 years of
experience in typesetting are all the letter and words in this document came from one typesetting or they came different sources? MR. IREY: An assembly of sources created this document. It
wasnt one typewriter. It could not have been. That I say as a professional typographer 57 years and conclude that this is a forgery. MR. JOEL: Objection, move to strike the last part. Hes not
qualified to give a statement as to whether or not its a forgery. MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: Umm. Your Honor he is qualified. May I address the
court, Your Honor. Forgery may be proven by experts in the State of Indiana thats the Bedree opinion 747 Northeastern 2nd at 1197 and 1198. MR. JOEL: Your Honor, to be able to conclude something is a
forgery hes needs to have examined the original in Hawaii as compared to something else thats admittedly genuine in the State of Hawaii contemporaneous to that to be able to see whether or not there are differences or not. Hes not provided any evidence on that and hes not qualified to give a forgery opinion. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: I need to say something. Yeah I need to---. Mr. Black a response to [unintelligible]. 99
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:
He said, Your Honor, he downloaded the White
House certificate which you have. He said that. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: No, no, no. These [unintelligible] Ms. Taitz, I have to make a ruling so hold on.
Alright so evidentiary response which is he cannot provide the Court with a legal conclusion as to forgery, that was---did we already cover that? MR. BLACK: Your Honor, the opinion said that I cited to you,
the Court of Appeals said that they may prove that to you by saying---see forgery is noun as well as a legal conclusion. THE COURT: But---but further objection was that he couldnt
provide the court with that conclusion because he hasnt reviewed the original document and made his comparison. So--MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: White House certificate. MR. IREY: THE COURT: MR. IREY: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: The [unintelligible]. Hold on. But I can [unintelligible]. Hold on. But he, he didnt, isnt their testimony that he My response is--response to that objection. is his preparatory testimony is he did review the
reviewed any thing else, any other birth certificate contemporaneous with August 4th, 1961 admittedly genuine from the State of Hawaii. To have forgery you need to compare it to something--THE COURT: Okay.
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: THE COURT:
and [unintelligible]. Heres what I understand his testimony to be. Hes
looked at the White House posted document and in his opinion it is not genuine. Would that be fair? MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: Yes. Yes. Yes. Ill allow that testimony. Thank you Judge. Next question. Mr. Irey in your 57 years of
experience, when you look at a document that is created with a typewriter would the spaces between different letters be the same? MR. IREY: Always be equal because a typewriter---the old
ones were monospaced. You typed a letter and the carriage moved exactly six points with elite typeface like this. MS. TAITZ: When you look at Mr. Obamas birth certificate
that was created in 1961, supposedly with a typewriter do you see the same spacing or do you see different spacing? MR. IREY: It depends on which side your looking at. On the
left these are two letter combinations. All of the two letter combinations that occur on the document. Since theres four combination of ol I can compare the four together. Theyre mostly right. Others like the an combination, theres five and theres five different spaces between. But on this side, these letters came from words that wouldnt of have to be made up letter by letter. They took the word Honolulu, in whole, from another certificate and this letter spacing is fine and all of these are equal
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
because of that. So inside the same document, we have poor letter spacing and good letter spacing. MS. TAITZ: So what you---in order to---to sort---sort of clarify
this, what you are saying that in the words that an alleged forger took that common name can be found in Hawaiian birth certificate, like Honolulu. MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: Copies. The spacing between the letters in the words is, is
the same. Is as you would expect. But when you look at words that are not common on the birth certificate, like Barack and Obama, you found that the spacing between letters is completely different. MR. IREY: MR. JOEL: dont see--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: address the objection. THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: Mr. Black. Your Honor. Response. This testimony was responsive to the very question Can I ask you, hold on sir. Ms Taitz, whens theres an objection I have to Because a typewriter didnt type that Any testimony about specific words. I dont---I
she was asking with words that are peculiar to this certificate was the spacing consistent or not and he said no. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: Ill allow that question. Next question Mr.--Thank you Your Honor.
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: MR. BLACK:
Thank you Your Honor. Wait
[Ms. Taitz and Mr. Black talking unintelligible] MS. TAITZ: Oh, Your Honor, if we may identify plaintiffs
exhibit 4 and were moving to admit into evidence. THE COURT: exhibit 4, is that what you--MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. want. Alright--Its actually--mark it exhibit 4. 4 and 5 because one side is 4 and another side is 5, 4 and 5. Okay, it is 4 and 5. This demonstrative poster will be marked as
Counsel for admission, do I have an objection MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: Yes. to the admissibility of 4 and 5. Yes, its---. First of all Your Honor we were never
provided with them in this format. Not that Im aware of although at the end of the day maybe I be proven wrong. Number two, we have no basis for adjudging. Theres been no testimony that these letters have been taken, I believe, from the birth certificate. Theres nothing to authenticate this. Theres nothing to---its not relevant. Its hearsay. Its, what else---. THE COURT: Mr. Black respond.
Alright, were running out of time.
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:
Its a blow up of an exhibit that we used on all
complaints Your Honor. Hes identified---. THE COURT: Well thats not particularly a responsible response.
I going to make the ruling and Ill admit 4 and 5 based on it is a summary of witness testimony and his assessment of the birth certificate posted on line by the White House and his experience as a 57 year old - 57 veteran of type. Its just an illustrative document showing his comparisons MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: Thanks, Judge. and its admissible. Thanks, Judge. Now, lets move on because were---it ten minutes
to one and I believe counsel indicated they have a second witness. MS. TAITZ: Mr. Irey--.
I would like to identify this as plaintiffs exhibit 7 MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY: and 8 and 8. Yes, this is plaintiffs exhibit 7. We missed 6 the court reporters told me. Theyre all [unintelligible] I got---. 6 and 7, sorry Mr. Irey, what is this? Thats a white halo around the letters
photographed from the pdf released on line at whitehouse.gov. Blown up to show the existent of a white halo which---this is the only birth certificate that I know of that has a white halo.
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 statement.
MS. TAITZ: MR. JOEL: MS. TAITZ: MR. JOEL:
Have you---. Objection. Mr. Irey. Objection, Your Honor. Unless hes examined
every birth certificate hes not competent. MR. IREY: MR. BLACK: Ive examined about 12. [unintelligible]
Your Honor he says the only one he knows of, which is a true
THE COURT:
Well, that begs the question. How many birth
certificates has he looked at that were posted and line and he compared to this birth certificate? MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: On White House website. On the White House website specifically. Respond. Your Honor he did not say how many he has
examined, I would concede you that. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Ill sustain the objection. Mr. Irey, from our experience with---57 years
experience with typesetting and 26 years experience with computer graphic programs, can you get this white halo in document. When a---a document that is just a copy of something that was just created with a typewriter. MR. IREY: I should explain the circumstances. The allegation
was made that the original document in the files of Obama's birth certificate was taken out of the files and put face down on the copy machine and copied to green security paper.
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 appear? old
MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY:
Like this right? Yes, this is a sheet of the actual green security
paper and that was what---the copy they made was what they sent the White House. But theres this white halo around it. MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: So could it happen, can you get--No. a white halo when you just take a piece of paper, an
MR. IREY: not allow for a white halo. MS. TAITZ:
Anything, typewritten material copied to this does
Okay. So how can you get this halo? When did it
MR. IREY:
I did it. I did it with my experiment.
We made this on the right and both sides is from our own specimen that we made and that illustrates that normally when you copy to the green security paper there is no halo. But we made a halo by running it through Adobe Photoshop and applying a unset, unsharp masque. So exhibit F shows a halo that I made in the same way that I predict that it was---the original was made. So I have to explain what I think happened. MS. TAITZ: dont have time MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY: This will take one sentence Okay. The forger---. No, no, no because I have only five minutes and we
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: MR. IREY: MR. JOEL: THE COURT:
Objection Your Honor. Im assuming---. [unintelligible] forger. He said predicting Im going to overrule because we havent gotten to
any--were just getting an opinion. MR. IREY: Im going to say in my opinion, the only way this
can happen if this---. The file was assembled on the computer in layers and then this not a sheet that was copied to, it was a sheet that was scanned and then included into the forgers assembly and then flatten it and then applied it applied an unsharp masque. Thats the only way you can make white appear instead of green. MS. TAITZ: So it is your opinion that, that in order to get this
white halo the document had to be prepared--MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: Computer manipulation. So through computer manipulation. Yes. No further questions, Your Honor.
[someone speaking unintelligibly] MS. TAITZ: number 6 and 7. MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: MR. IREY: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: What about the other side? No time? No time because we [unintelligible]. Okay Hold on. We have an offer of 6, 6 and 7 You gotta to give it to me We would like to move into evidence exhibit
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 Honor---
Alright. Mr. Joel, Mr. Garn we have an offer of 6 & 7. MR. JOEL: We object, Your Honor. I believe he said that its
his prediction, that he thinks, that---theres---theres he manipulated I think he said, he made copies---. MR. IREY: THE COURT: MR. IREY: THE COURT: MR. IREY: THE COURT: Computer manipulation Shh. Sir I can mention this couldnt I. No, you dont get to. Okay Let me do it.
Alright, does that complete your objections? MR. JOEL: Same objections we had to the previous ones, Your
THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT:
Sure, I understand just to move things along Mr. Black respond. You Honor, goes to weight. Yes, the Courts going to admit 6 and 7 just as a
summary of the witnesss testimony. Lets go to cross. CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. IREY BY MR. JOEL MR. JOEL: Mr. Irey, do you know for a fact what type of copier
might have been used to reproduce the paper copy of the Obama certificate? MR. IREY: MR. JOEL: used to back in 1961 to create---.
Actually not. Do you know for a fact what type of typewriter was
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. IREY: MR. JOEL:
No, I dont. Do you know how the State of Hawaii fills out its
birth certificates or how it did in 1961? MR. IREY: MR. JOEL: I have been made aware of that. That wasnt my question. Do you have personal
knowledge as to how the State of Hawaii filled out its birth certificates in 1961? MR. IREY: MR. JOEL: Well I mean they said themselves how they do it. Thats not my question. Can you listen to my
question? Do you have personal knowledge as to how the State of Hawaii completed and filled out birth certificates in 1961? MR. IREY: MR. JOEL: MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: Personal sense, that I was there and saw it done. Yeah. Well no. Objection, Your Honor the question was not very
clear. What did he mean---how he---. I believe Mr. Irey has already stated that in 1961 the documents were prepared with a typewriter and thats common knowledge. There were no computers, a computer generated documents so thats what he already testified to. What else did Mr. Joel want to clarify? THE COURT: Mr. Joel response. MR. JOEL: Your Honor my question was whether or not he Alright, I think have the objection noted.
knew for a fact from personal knowledge how the State of Hawaii filled out birth certificates in 1961 and his answer was no. THE COURT: Ill overrule the objection. Those two statements, if
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
you will, are not exclusive. So he could in fact have known that it was a typewriter and other matters he testified to; but still not of have personal knowledge of how the State of Hawaii prepared the documents. Alright, lets move on. We have to cover cross and we have about three minutes left. MR. JOEL: Mr. Irey, in connection with your comparison did
you go to Hawaii and pull the original thats sitting in Honolulu for comparison purposes? MR. IREY: MR. JOEL: MR. IREY: MR. JOEL: Did I go to Hawaii to look at the original? Yes. Yes I did. Did you compare it to other birth certificates that
were contemporaneously made in 1961 in the State of Hawaii? MR. IREY: We werent allowed to see that original document.
We went there with Mrs. Taitz but we werent permitted to see the original. MR. JOEL: Okay, so to back up. Do I understand you correctly
that you did not review, in the State of Hawaii, the original birth certificate of President Obama? MR. IREY: MR. JOEL: No. Sometimes we talk in double negatives. My
statement is correct you did not review that. MR. IREY: MR. JOEL: MR. IREY: MR. JOEL: I tried. But you did not review that. No. And is it also true that you did not review other
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
admitted genuine birth certificates from the state of Hawaii that were created at our about August the 4th, 1961? MR. IREY: MR. JOEL: MR. IREY: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: I did review other birth certificates of course. That was not the question. What was the question? Objection, asked and answered. Unfortunately were out of time. Were out of time. Okay. The Court would note for the record that I gave the
parties an additional hour, instead of two hours that were allotted to them. So we had a total of three hours. I did have a meeting off the record with counsel and advised them that we would stop promptly at one oclock. And now it 59.32. We just thirty seconds under on this clock and we re over on that clock so. Counsel, heres what I---. Sir you may step down. MR. IREY: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: are under advisement. Counsel, I need proposed orders. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. Along with the requisite number of copies. Okay. Thank you sir. And we thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. Heres the Courts order going forward. All matters
Envelopes, self-addressed, stamped. On all the issues that we have this morning. And
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 going to suggest that you probably should put them out in separate orders. Normally I like to combine them so that we dont have so much paper in the file, but I have think under the circumstances it might be clearer for the record if we use separate orders. So I want an order on the Motion for Default. I want an order on the Motion to Vacate, an order on the Motion to Dismiss and the final order would be on the Motion to---for Declaratory Relief. Im going to have you submit those orders in one hard copy with a CD in a Word format so that I might---I might provide any necessary adjustments. I want those orders---Counsels, this is Monday the 22nd, would Counsel be able to get me those orders by later this week, say by Thursday, MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: like. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Ms. Taitz? Yes, Your Honor. We would like to get also the [whispering] Yes, say yes. [quietly] Yes. I want to say Thursday. Not a problem, Your Honor. Whatever you would
transcript if possible, as soon as possible. THE COURT: [unintelligible]. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Thursday. MR. BLACK: Thats fine. Do you want us to bring it in physically Okay. Mr. Black can counsel get me an order by, lets say Ms. Taitz, well take care of that after
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
or email it to you. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: It needs to be here Thursday. Okay. Whatever way method you can use to get it here by
Thursday, you are certainly welcome to figure out your own method. MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: You want it emailed to you, Your Honor? Sorry? You want it emailed to you. No, I dont want anything emailed to me. Okay. Thats---. But what I am saying, well what I should say is that
if you provide this CD, now make sure we have---we can open your CD and access the document. So all of your orders can come on the CD, but I have to have at least one hard copy of the proposed order. At least one. MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: you want? MR. BLACK: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: Word. But Word they have doc or docx. I dont know, Okay, Ill check. you can take it up with the court reporter. Okay. Microsoft Word format. Thursday, by close of the Now you close at 4:30 Your Honor? Yes we do. Which, I sorry, is it doc or docx. Which program do
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
Court on Thursday, 4:30. Then the Court will try to issue its decision, opinion just as quickly thereafter as I can get it out to you. MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: Thank you, Your Honor. Alright. Any questions about my order? No. No, we thank you Judge. Any questions? No, Your Honor. Alright. Im looking for orders than on Thursday.
Thank you all. That concludes this hearing.

Unofficial Transcript 22 October 2012 Taitz V Elections Board

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Unofficial Transcript 22 October 2012 Taitz V Elections Board

Uploaded by

Copyright:

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT

In the Marion Superior Court Civil Court 14

Trial Court Case No. 49D-14-1203-MI-012046

Before the Honorable S. K. Reid, Judge

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

1648 East Main Street, Ste. A Indianapolis, IN 46168

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

Give us just a moment.

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

MS. TAITZ: THE COURT:

You're doing fine.

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

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

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

THE COURT: MR. JOEL:

On the Motion to Dismiss. Im happy to move that. There is some overlap

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

MS. TAITZ: was filed Fri---. THE COURT:

Well first of all---first of all the Motion to Vacate

Ms. Taitz, Im asking the question, did you address

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

A preliminary injunction is not a cause of action.

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

THE COURT: MR. JOEL: THE COURT: MR. JOEL:

THE COURT: MR. JOEL:

Correct. That as a matter of law they are not able to come to

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

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

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

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

Ms Taitz: THE COURT:

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

And well get there. We just---I just have to have

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

MR. BLACK: THE COURT: MR. BLACK:

Yes I do. additional argument. A couple things.

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT -- PLEASE SEE NOTE ON PAGE 1