TAITZ v DUNN - 80 - Motion for Clarification 381664 ROA 80

8/7/2019 TAITZ v DUNN - 80 - Motion for Clarification 381664 ROA 80

1/39

l

\

FILEDSUPE :.R IORCOURT O r CA l.. F ORN IAC OU NT '( O F OMI'I ..CEI ' - rfRAI . JU l$ iICl ! : t : . 1 ! ! iE R

4

DR. ORLY TAITZ ESQ, PRO SE29839 SANTA MARGARITA PKWYRANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688Ph 949-683-5411 fax [email protected] SUPERIOR COURTORANGE COUNTYLAGUNA HILLS DIVISION

ALAN CAR i. SON ICllrk o f Cour t, ( ~ =( ) -2356 ) CASE NO.: 30-2010) 00381664)) Administrative moition,) request for) clarificatio~ .~ ,,"/OfiU cf .f)CO-f1i 1 : ?

));no,.d~V;" tV 9 c2lln

7 ORLY TAITZ,8 PLAINTIFF ,9 VS.

10 D AMON DO NN ,11 DEFENDANT12 /Vol/er. ob I f


2/39

9

Administrative motion, request: for cLer ification - 2

1 court and stamped by the clerk of the court on Marc2 11, 2011, 24 days ago, was never docketed on3 electronic docket available to the public. This aotio4 should have been docketed within a day or two. Th5 Plaintiff requests to docket it as soon as possLble, s6 that it can be used as part of the designated recprd i7 the Court of Appeals.8 Respectfully submitted,

10

( " : . : l - - ~ ~ ~ ~ : . "./s/Orl;;JTaitz

11 Orly:Taitz29839 Sant12

13 Margaritpkwy, ste 100, RSM, CA 9268814

1516 Certificate of service

I, Orly Taitz, attest that a true and correct copy ofthe above motion was automatically served on thedefendant's attorney Brian Hildreth via electronicfiling, approved by the Orange County Superior Court,on 04.04.2011

17

1819~o1

23

/s/ OrIy Taltz29839 SantaMargarita PkwyRancho SantaMargarita CA 92688

222


3/39

10 PROOF OF SERVICE9

Service of process - 1

Orange County Superior Court

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ1 2$839 Santa Margarita ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita2 CA 926883

Case No.: 30-2010-003674744 Medical Dental Development LLC5 Plaintiff, PROOF OF SERVICE

6 vs.

11 I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that:12 I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18, and not a party to the withi13 cause of action. My business address is 29839 Santa Margarita pkwy, ste 100, Ranch14 Santa Margarita, CA 92688

16 On April 11 2011, I served the following

17 Notice of Judgment18 On the following party19 Law offices of Pari1la and Ettinger, LLP20 Attn Marc Ettinger21 20 Pacifica ste 30022 Irvine CA 92618 -3383

24 By first class certified mail: By placing said documents in a sealed envelope

15

23

7 Pierson, Johnson et aI,B Defendant

25 depositing said envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the U.S. mail box.26 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that27 foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on April 11,28 2011 at Rancho Santa Margarita, California


4/39

II

."23~ ~~,5

6.Ii"f8

9H10

111? 1 113

14J.:)

16

17181920

21222324

25162728

Dated this 04.11.2011

Service of process - 2


5/39

EXHIB IT 1


6/39

1

Taitz v Dunn 03.11.2011 Motion for Sur-reply

2

3

4

5

67 CASE NO.! 30-2010-00381664

MOTION FOR LEAVE: OFCOURT TO FILE SUR..REPL Y TO MOTION FORJUDGMENT ON THE .PLEADINGSDate: March 14, 2011Time: 2:00 PMDept C:33Judge Hon Jeffrey T. Glass

8 ORL Y TAITZ,9 PLAINTIFF,

10 vs.1.1 DAMON DUNN,12 DEFENDANT13

15 PlaintiffOrly Taitz submits attached short Sur-Reply in opposition to reply by the defense due16 to multiple statements that were clear misrepresentation of the facts and law by the defense. such17 misrepresentations were used to prejudice the court against the Plaintiff and present her and her18 case in false light. Attached Sur-Reply contains affidavit by the Plaintiff Orly Taitz, explaining19 and highlighting flagrant misrepresentations made by the Defense attorney Brian Hildreth and20 following exhibits:21 1. Return receipt, Certificate of service of the Opposition brief received by the Defense on Marc22 4, 2011 at the new address of the defendant's attorney Mr. Hildreth23 2. Transcript of the OUO.20r I CMC hearing in Taitz v Dunn, where on the record Defendant's24 attorney Brian Hildreth states completely the opposite to what he stated at 07.01.2011 hearing.25 3. Campaign flier by the Secretary of State ofCA Debra Bowen, specifically attacking candidat26 Orly Taitz, but not candidate Damon Dunn, which shows animus by the secretary of State27 against Taitz and explains her inaction in disqualifying Dunn.28

1


7/39

4

Taitz v Dunn 03.11.2011 Motion for Sur-reply

5 Orly Taitz6 Plaintiff

1 Plaintiff asserts that misrepresentations and misstatements in the reply brief justify the sur-reply2 in order to avert prejudice against the Plaintiff.3 Re sp ec tf ul ly s ubm itte d ,

7 pro se ,.. .~~.. /'. ,89 Orly Taitz

10 29839 Santa M argarita pkwy. s te 100, R SM , C A 9268811

12 Certificate of service1, OrIy Taitz, attest that a true and correct copy of the above motion was served on the defendant

14 on03.11.201115

.1 617

1819

20212223

24

25

2627

26

/ ~./ ..Orly iai tZ': '29839 Santa Margarita PkwyRancho Santa Margarita C A92688


8/39

i23

1

5

6

- -------------------------

DR . ORLY TA ITZ ESO , PRO SE29839 SA NTA M ARGA lU T A PKWYRANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688Ph 949-683-5411 fax [email protected] SUPERIOR COURTORANGECOUN1'YCENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

7 ORLY TAITZ,B PLAINTIFF,9 VS.

10 DAMON DUNN,11 DEFENDANT

CASE NO.: 30-2010-00381664SUR-REPLY TO MOTIONFOR JUDGMENT ON mEPLEADINGSDate: March 14,2011Time: 2:00 PMDept C:33Judge Hon Jeffrey T. Glass

12 I . P lain tiffO rly Taitz s tates the fo llo wing . O n M arch 1,2011 Plain tiff f iled an opposition13 to D efendant's M otion fo r Judgm ent on the p leadings and on the sam e day Plaintiff14 mailed a copy of such pleading s to the defendan t's atto rney B rian H ildreth ._ 5 2. P laintiff m ailed such copy by C ertif ied m ail w ith return receip t(E xhibit 1), w hich w as16 re ce iv ed b ack by t he P l ain ti ff .17 3. R etu rn receip t show s that the address o f A tto rney H ildreth changed and it was d e li v er ed1619202122

232425262728

to his new address on March 4th 201 ] .4 . A tto rney Hildreth d id not no tify the court and P laintiff tim ely of his change of address .5 . H ildreth filed his change of address on ly on 03 .07.20 II,a w eek after P lain tiff m ailed hi

her opposi t ion. P lain tiff receiv ed his cha nge of address no tice 8 days after she m ailed toh im h er o pp os iti on . ,6 . Due to the change of address her opposition fiJed on 03.01.20 J 1 and m ailed to H ildrethon the sam e day, was received by him 3 days later on 03.04 .2011 and not on 03.02.2011or 03.03.201), as it would. if he w ere to no tify ber and the court o f his change of address ,

7 . N ot only H ildreth d id not tim ely no tify the court and Plaintiff about the change ofaddress , he acted w ith m alice and on 03.07.2011 filed a m otio n to s tr ik e P l ain ti ff s

Affidavit of Orly Taltz Motion for leave of court to file surrep1y 1
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


9/39

1 opposition due to the fact that he did not get opposition on 03.02.2011 or 03.03.1011, as2 he expected.3 8. In his Motion to strike Hildreth is de facto trying to prejudice the court against the4 Plaintiff- Orly Taitz and is asking the court to de facto sanction her by striking he r5 pleadings, while he is actually committing fraud on the court and misrepresentation by6 knowingly not disclosing in his 03.07.2011 Motion to strike and his 03.07.2011 affidavit7 the fact that by that time he already got the opposition and that it arrived a day later thanB expected because he, himself, failed to notify the court and Taitz t imely of his change of9 address.

10 9. This incident is only one of serious of similar incidents, where Hildreth attempted to11 prejudice the court against Taitz and wrote or stated things that were not true.12 10. Prior to 01.10.2011 Hildreth unilaterally filed a case management statement, where he13 claimed that we had a meet and confer and he completely misrepresented the case and14 remedies sought in that statement.15 11. Hildreth a nd T aitz never had a meet and confer, Hildreth knew about it and m ade a16 fraudulent statement.17 12. On July 1,2010 at a motion hearing, Taitz asked for expedited handling of the case, due18 to the fact that part of the case was an election contest.19 ] 3. At the time Hildreth argued that Tam is not entitled to expedited handling, since she20 w in have a remedy later on in the form of a special election or annulment of the results 021 the election. Based on the argument by Hildreth the court denied the motion for expedite22 handling of the case and expedited trial.23 14. 5 J X months later at 01.10.2011 case manegement conference Hildreth argued If! could24 refer the court to elections code section 16520, it says that upon filing of the election2S contest, the presiding judge is required to schedule hearing between 10 and 20 days after26 the date". (exhibit 2 Transcript of 01. to.20l1 case management conference) As2? 01.10.2011 statement by Hildreth is diametrically opposite to the 07.01.2010 statement, it29 shows that Hildreth was indeed making a fraudulent statement on 07.01.2010, when he

Affidavit of Orly Taitz Motion for leave of court to file surreply 2


10/39

123

5

6799

1011

12

131415161718

192021222324

25

262128

Number of pagesCalifornia rules of Civil Procedure a1lows 20 pages on response briefs for Sumrn

stated that according to elections code Tanz is not entitled to expedited trial, which mighthave cost her the right to participate in genera] election or even win such election andwhich only increased potential damages by th e Defendant, client of Hildreth.

15. The court, indeed noticed this controversy, when the court stated addressing to Hildreth"The court: I think it was the plaintiff's application for an expedited trial. Maybe Ishouldn't have denied it. An expedited trial under 1650 should have been granted. Is thatwhat you are te lling m e counsel? M s. Taitz: He opposed it. The court: I am sorry,Counsel? Mr. Hildreth: You certainly could have granted it under 16520."

16. Similarly, Hildreth repeatedly refused all Taitz requests for deposition of his client.17. Inhis current motion for judgment on the pleadings Hildreth again misrepresents the case

and he uses his own bad faith in refusing to submit to deposition as an excuse onjustification to state t ha t T a it z did not provide s uf fi ci en t f ac ts to show fraud on part of hisclient.

Judgment.Rule 313. Memorandum of points and authorities(d) [Length of memorandum; requirements for leagtby memoraudum] Except in a:summary judgment or summary adjudication motion., no opening or responding memorandum ofpoints and authorities shall exceed 15 pages. In a summary judgment or summary adjudicationmotion, no opening or responding memorandum of points and authorities shall exceed 20 pages

Current brief for ludgment on the Pleadings is akin to the brief for Summary Judgmenwhereby 20 pages are allowed, Plaintiffs brief w as 20 and a half pages, only a few Jinemore than 20 pages. Additionally, due to recent eye sight problems Taitz used a larger fon14. When changed to smaller fonts, which are allowed, the brief is between 16-18 pagesThere was nothing "inexcusable" in this matter. It seems inexcusable, that Mr. Hildwould waste the court tim e, d ec la re some so rt of jihad an d write a motion to strike a brief duto a few lines over the limit. It only shows that there is no legitimate reason to Dismiss th

Affidavit of Orly l'aitz Motion for leave of court to file surreply 3


11/39

1234

56789

10

1.112

1314

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

2324

252627

28

case on the pleadings. Defendant dearly committed fraud, damages were significant anDefense is grabbing at straws.

Time of service and service of process form.As stated before the opposition brief was filed and sent on March I st. Defense got it 0March 4th due to the fact that Mr. Hildreth moved and did not notify the court and defenseThe opposition brief arrived a day or two later due to actions by the defense, not the Plaintiff.The defense was not harmed in any way by any minor technical omissions and Motion tStrike the Opposition Brief or part of the Opposition Brief has no merit and should not bgranted.NEGLIGENCE BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE DID NOT EXCUSE FR.,I\.UDBY

DUNNThe main argument by the Defense, is that the Secretary of state Deborah Bowen did not acto remove Dunn from the ballot, therefore he is scot free.Plaintiff presents a campaign flier by the Secretary of State Deborah Bowen, who ran fooffice at the same time as Taitz and Dunn (Exhibit 3). In this flier "Help Debra fight bacagainst right wing opponent, contribute" Bowen barely mentions the defendant Damon Dubut repeatedly mentions the plaintiff Taitz, as a right wing ideolog and attorney who needs tbe defeated. It is that Bowen did nothing to demand that Dunn provide a new fully filed ouvoter registration form, which would make his registration untimely for this run, forn umbe r o f re as on s.It is possible that Bowen was simply negligent, or she considered Dunn, who W a ': 1 a formefootball player, a weaker opponent than Taitz, maybe Democrat party preferred Dunn,lifelong Democrat, to be facing Democrat Bowen in general election, rather thconservative long time Republican Taitz. Maybe, Bowen's attacks on Taitz and policy 0doing nothing against Dunn, was a way for the Democrat Party to hedge the bets. At any ratinaction by Bowen did not excuse fraud y Dunn. Defense reasoning is akin to one forgingcar registration or a deed to the house, saying, just because police did not act yet, the rightfuowner of the vehicle or a house is not entitled to relief and restitution.

Affidavit of Orly Taitz Motion fo r leave of court to file surreply 4


12/39

1

23

4

567

89

10

11

12

131415161718

} 92D

21

22

23

24

25

26

2726

Defen se im pro perly lim its election contest 10 S tate law and im pro perly o mits requ irem ent.of HAVA and Voter Registration act.Defense is arguing that because the state of CA is interesting in whether tl1e voter iregistered somehwere else in CA and not somewhere else in the country, there was nelections fraud and no voter fraud.In reality the Voter registration card contains a mandatory disclosure of whether a voteregistered in a no th er state for a specific reason, to m ake sure that th e v oter does riot registein multiple states in violation of HA V A (Help America Vote Act), Voter Registration A cand Mota Voter Registration Act. the fact that Dunn did registered somewhere else in CAmight have been good enough to satisfy one provision, but his fraud by omission to statregistration in two other states, dearly violated the HAVA and VRA.

PUBLIC POLICYI t is noteworthy that the Defendant ran for the position of the Secretary of State of CAhighest election official of the state. The scrutiny and standard in safeguarding against frauby an individual running fo r such an important position is much higher than the scrutiny ir ela tio n to other voters. Dunn is in public eye. his latest press releases state that he becamelecturer and a visiting scholar. If voter fraud and elections fraud is swept under tile rug annot heard on the merits, it undermines the whole premise of fair elections.

FRAUD COMMITTEDAs explained in the complaint defendant committed multiple acts of fraud1. Nominators stated that they did not nominate him for the position2. Defendant did not provide mandatory disclosure of the fact that he registered in two othestates to vote and that he registered as a Democrat, while he ran as a Republican inCA3. Defendant committed further act of fraud in contacting the registrar in FL and demandinto delete from the database his voter registration, where he was registered a s a D em o crat.All of these acts showed that the defendant committed multiple acts of fraud.

The public at large reasonably believed that the defendant was not committing fraud

Affidavit of Or1y Taitz Motion for leave of court to file surreply


13/39

1 If aU the above facts were revealed it is reasonable to believe and it is most certain that mos2 California Republicans would not have voted for Dunn in CA Republican primary.3 Taitz was a candidate who spent over $50,000 competing against a candidate who4 defrauding her and the public.s Taitz was a foreseeable plaintiff as she was in the zone of danger of individuals affecte6 by fraud committed byDunn.7 Taitz was not required to provide evidentiary proof of each and every element of fraud in heB complaint. Evidentiary proof is to be produced at trial and it is up to th e jury to decide9 whether the Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to prove each and every element of he

10 allegation. Defense improperly brings forward cases related to final detenni~ation an11 attempted to use them in relation to Judgment on Pleadings only, which he seeks.12 Wberefore,13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings did not meet the required burden and did no t prov14 that there are no disputed facts in the complaint and therefore sh ould be denied.15

1617

18

19

2C2122

23

24

252627

28

.1 ~

Orly Tait29839 Santa Margari

pkwy, ste 100, RSM, CA 9268

Certificate of serviceI. Orly Teitz, attest that l.I true and correct copy oithe above motion was served on the defendanton 03.11.2011

-~-----~ .~-~-Orly Taitz29839 Santa Margarita PkwyRancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Aff.idavit of OrLy Taitz Motion for leave of court to file surreply


14/39

1234

56

789

1011

1213

Affidavit of Otly Taltz Molion for leave ot court to f il e s ur re pl y

15

161718

19202122

2324

2S262728

1


15/39

3

Affidavit of O~ly Taitz Motion for leave of court to file surreply 1

DR . ORL Y TA ITZ ESO. PRO SE1 29839 SA NTA MA RG AR ITA PKWYRA NC HO SA NTA M ARGA RITA CA 92688Ph 949-683-5411 fax [email protected]

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURTORANGE COUNTYCENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER67 ORLY TAITZ,8 PLAINTIFF,9 VS.

10 DAMON DUNN,

CASE NO.: 30-2010-00381664AFFIDAVIT OF ORLYTAITZ IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FOR LEAVE OFCOURT TO FILE SUR -R EPLY TO MOTION F@RJUDGMENT ON THEPLEADINGSDate: Marcb 14,1011Time: 2:00 PMDept C:33Judge HOD Jeffrey T. Glass

DEFENDANT121314 I, Orly Taitz, am a plaintiff in Taitz v Dunn. I am a member of the bar of this court and I a m

adm itted to practice befo re this C alifo rnia C ourt. I m ake this declaration o f m y personal16 knowledge of the facts stated herein and couJd and would competently testify to them if called to17 do so.18 1. On March 1,2011 I filed an opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the19 pleadings an d on the same da y I mailed a copy of such pleadings to the defendant's20 attorney Br ia n H i ld r et h.21 2. I mailed such copy by Certified mail with return receipt(Exhibit I). which was received22 back by me.23 3. Return receipt shows that the address of Attorney Hildreth changed and it was delivered

to his new address on March 4th 2011.2425 4. Attorney Hildreth did not notify the court and me timely of his change of address.26 5. Hildreth filed his change of address only on 03.07.2011, a week after I mailed him my27 opposition. I received his change of address notice 8 days after I mailed to him my2~ ~itiQn.


16/39

1 6. Due to the change of address my opposition filed on 03.01.2011 and mailed to H~ldrethL on the same day, was received by him 3 days later on 03.04.2011 and not on 03.012.20113 or 03.03.2011, as it would, ifhe were to notify me and the court of his change of address,4 7. Not only Hildreth did not timely notify the court and me about the change of address, he5 acted with malice and on 03.07.20 I ) filed a motion to strike my opposition due to the6 fact that he did not get opposition on 03.02.2011 o r 03.03.2011, as he expected.? 8 . In his M otion to strike Hildreth is d e f ac to tr yin g to p reju dice th e c ou rt ag ain st m~ an d is8 asking the court to de facto sanction me by striking my pleadings, while he is actually9 committing fraud on the court and misrepresentat ion by knowingly not disclosing inhis

10 03.07.2011 Motion to strike and his 03.07.2011 affidavit the fact that by that time he11 already got the opposition and that I t arrived a day later than expected because he,12 himself. failed to notify the court and Taitz timely of his change of address.13 9. This incident is only one o f serio us o f sim ilar incidents, where Hildreth attempted to14 prejudice the court against me and wrote or stated things that were not true.

10. Prior to 01. 10.2011 Hildreth unilaterally filed a case management statement, where he16 claimed that we had a meet and confer and he completely misrepresented the case and17 remedies sought in t ha t s ta temen t.18 11. Hildreth and 1 never had a meet and confer, Hildreth knew about it and made a fraudulent19 statement.20 12. On July 1,2010 we had a motion hearing, where I asked for expedited handling oflthe21 ca se , d ue to the fact that part of the case was an election contest.22 13.At th e time Hildreth argued tbat I am not entitled to expedited handling, since I will23 have a remedy Iater on in the form of 8. special election or annulment of the results oftbe24 election. Based on the argument by Hildreth the court denied the motion for expedited25 h andl in g o f th e case and exped it ed trial.26 14. At 01.10.2011 case management conference Hildreth argued "If I could refer the court to27 elections code section 16520, it says that upon filing of the election contest, the presiding28 judge is required to schedule hearing between 10 and 20 days after the date". (exhibit 2

Affidavit of Orly Taitz Motion for leave of court to file surreply


17/39

1

23

4

5678

9101.1.

121314

516

1718192021222324

252627

Transcript of 01.10.2011 case management conference)As 01.10.2011 statement byHildreth is diametrically opposite to the 06.01.2010 statement, it shows that Hildreth wasindeed making a fraudulent statement on 07.01.2010. when he stated that according toelections code Iam n ot entitled to exp ed ited trial, which m ight have cost me the n i g h t toparticipate in general eJection or even win such election and which only increasedpotential damages by the client of Hildreth.

15. The court, indeed noticed this controversy, when the court stated addressing to Hildreth"The court: I think it was the plaintiffs application for an expedited trial. Maybe Ishouldn't have denied it. An expedited trial under 1650 should have been granted Is thatw hat you are telling m e counsel? Ms. Taitz: He opposed it. The court: I am sorry ,Counsel? Mr.Hildreth: You certainly could have granted it under 16520."

16. Similarly. Hildreth repeatedly refused all my requests for deposition of his client.17. Inhis current motion for judgment on the pleadings Hildreth again misrepresents the case

and he uses his own bad faith in refusing to submit t o depo s it io n as an excuse orjustification to state that I did not provide sufficient facts to show fraud on part otThisclient.

18. Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Return mail receipt receive in my office19. Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Transcript of the 01.10.2011 CMC inTaitz v

Dunn20. Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the campaign flier by Secretary of State Debra

Bowen received by me.Affiant further says not.

O rl y T aitz29839 Santa M argarita pkwy, ste 100, R SM , CA 92688

Certificate of serviceAffidavit of Orly Taltz Motion for l~ave of court to file surreply


18/39

J6

Affidavit of Orly Taitz MoUon for leave of court to file surreply 4

1 1, Orry Tauz, attest that a true and correct copy of the above m otion w as served on the defendant2 on 03 .n.201134

5

67

89

1011.

1213

14

Orly Taitz .2 98 39 S an ta M a rg arita PkwyRan ch o S an ta M a rg ar ita CA92688 .

17181920212223

2425

2621


19/39

EXH IB IT 1


20/39

l


2

DR . ORL Y T AITZ ESO . PRO SE29839 SANTA MARGAlUTA PKWYRANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688Ph 949-683-5411 fax [email protected] SUPERIOR COURTORANGE COUNTYCENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

34

5

6

7 ORLY TAITZ,8 PLAINTIFF,9 VS.

10 DAMON DUNN,

CASE NO.: 30-2010-00381664AFFIDAVIT OF ORLYT A lTZ IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FOR LEAVE OFCOURT TO FILE SUR -REPLY TO MOTION FORJUDGM ENT ON THEPLEADINGSDate: March 14,2011Time: 2:00 PMDept C:33Judge HOD Jeffrey T. Glass

11 DEFENDANT121314 I . O rly T aitz, am a p laintiff inTaitz v Dunn. I am a member o f the bar of this court and I am15 adm itted to practice before this C alifo rnia C ourt. I m ake th is declaration of m y personal16 knowledge of the facts stated herein and cou ld and w ould com peten tly testify to them if ca lle d to17 do so.IS 1. On March 1>2011 1 filed an o pp os itio n to D e fe nd an t's Motion f or J ud gme nt on th e19 p lead ings and on the sam e day I m ailed a copy of such pleadings to the defendant's20 a tto rn ey B ri an H il dr eth .21 2. I maile d s uch copy by Certified mail with return receipt(Exhibit 1). w hich w as received22 back by me.23 3. Return receipt shows that the address o f A t to rn ey Hildreth changed and it was delivered

to his new address on M arch 4 th 2 01 I.2425 4 . A tto rney H ild reth did not no tify the court and m e tim ely of his change of address .26 5. H ildreth filed his change of address only on 03.07.2011, a week after I m ailed him m y27 opposition. I received his change of address no tice 8 days after I m ailed to him my28 opposit ion.


21/39

1

23

5

6

7

8

91011

1213141516

17181920

21222324

2526

272B

6. Due to the change of address my opposition filed on 03.01.2011 and mailed to Hildrethon the same day, was received by him 3 days later on 03.04.2011 and not on 03.02.2011OT 03.03.201 I, as it would, if he were to notify me and the court of his change of address,

7. Not only Hildreth did not timely notify the court and me about the change of address, heacted with malice and on 03.07.2011 f iled a motion to strike my opposition due to thefact that he did not get opposition on 03.02.2011 or 03.03.20] 1, as he expected.

8. In his Motion to strike Hildreth is de facto trying to prejudice the court against me and isasking the court to de facto sanction me by striking my pleadings, while he is actuallycommitting fraud on the court and misrepresentation by knowingly not disclosing in his03.07.2011 Motion to strike and his 03.07.2011 affidavit the fact that by that time healready got th e opposition and that it arrived a da y later than expected because he,himself, failed to notify the court and Taitz timely of his change of address.

9. This incident is only one of serious of similar incidents, where Hildreth attempted toprejudice the court against me and wrote or stated things that were not true.

10. Prior to 01.1 0.2011 H i ld re th unilaterally filed a case management statement, where heclaimed that we had a meet and confer and he completely misrepresented the case andremedies sought inthat statement.

11. Hildreth and I never had a meet and confer, Hildreth knew about it and made a fraudulentstatement.

12. On July 1,2010 we had a motion hearing, where {asked for expedited handling of thecase, due to the fact that part of the case was an election contest.

13. At the time Hildreth argued tbat Iam not entitled to expedited handling, since I willhave a remedy la te r o n in the fonn of a special ejection or annulment of the results of theelection. Based on the argument by Hildreth the court denied the motion for expeditedhandling of the case and expedited. trial.

14. At 01.10.2011 case management conference Hildreth argued "IfI could refer the court toelections code section 16520, it says that upon filing of the election contest, the presidingjudge is . required to schedule hearing between 10 and 20 days after the date". (exhibit 2



22/39

1 Transcript of 01.10.2011 case management conference)As 01.10.2011 statement by2 Hildreth is diametrically opposite to the 06.01.2010 statement, it shows that Hildreth was3 indeed making a fraudulent statement on 07.01.2010, when he stated that according toq elections code I am not entitled to expedited trial, which might have cost me the right to5 participate in general election or even win such election and which only increased6 potential damages by the client of Hildreth.7 15. The court, indeed noticed this controversy, when the court stated addressing to Hildreth"8 The court: I think: it was the plaintiff's application for an expedited triaL Maybe I9 shouldn't have denied it. An expedited trial under} 650 should have been granted. Is that

10 what you are telling me counsel? Ms. Taitz: He opposed it. The court: I am sorry,11 Counsel? Mr. Hildreth: You certainly could have granted it under 16520."12 16. Similarly, Hi1dreth repeatedly refused all my requests for deposition of his client13 17. Inhis current motion for judgment on the pleadings Hildreth again misrepresents the case14 and he uses his ow n bad faith in refusing to s ubmit to deposition as an excuse or15 justification to state that I did not provide sufficient facts to show fraud on part of his16 client.17 18. Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Return mail receipt receive in my office18 19. Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Transcript of the 01.10.2011 CMC in Taitz v19 Dunn20 20. Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the campaign flier by Secretary of State Debra21 Bowen received by me.22 Af f ia n t f ur th er s ays not.

28 Certificate of service

23242526

Orly Taitz29839 Santa Margarita pkwy, ste 100, RSM, CA 92688

27



23/39

, I

1 I , O I ly Taitz, attest that a true and correct copy of the above motion was served on the defendant2 on 03.11.201134

5

6

7

a9

1011

121314

1516

1718192021222324

252627

28

Orly Taitz2 98 39 S an ta M a rg ar ita P kw yRancho Santa Margarita CA92688



24/39

, SENDER: COMPLEfE THIS SECTION C om plete item s 1 , 2 , and 3 . A lso co mp le teitem 4 If Re s tr ic te d De li ve ry i s d es ir ed . Print your name and address on the reverses o th at we c an r et ur n t he card to y o u . A ttach this c ard to th e b ac k o f th e m a ilp ie ce ,or on the f ront I f space permits.

.~. . . . . . "/,.


25/39

EX HIB IT 2


26/39

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

DEPARTMENT C-33

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ. , )}PLAINTIFF (8) r ))

VS. ) NO. 30-2010-00381664)DAMON DUNN AND DOES 1THROUGH )18, ))

DEFENDANT(S}. ))

HONORABLE GEOFFREY T. GLASS, JUDGE PRESIDINGREP ORTE R'S T RA NS CRIP T OF PROCEEDINGS

JANUARY 11, 2011

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF(S): DR. ORLY TAITZSEL F- REPR ESE NT ED L IT IG ANT

FOR T HE D EFEN DA NT (S ): BRIAN T. HILDRETHATTORNEY AT LAW(APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY)

JENNIFER S. LEWIS, CSR NO. 9476, RPR, eRROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER


27/39

1234

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 11, 2011MORNING SESSION

-000-THE COURT: ORLY TAITZ VERSUS DAMON DUNN.

5 MR. HILDRETH: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS BRIAN HILDRETH6 REPRESENTING DEFENDANT, DAMON DUNN.7 MS. TAITZ: ORLY TAITZ, REPRESENTING HERSELF.8 THE COURT: WHATtS THAT?9 MS. TAITZ: ORLY TAITZ, REPRESENTING MYSELF.

10 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED11 TO DO OTHER THAN TRY THIS -- TRY WHATEVER IS LEFT?12 MS. TAITZ: WELL, I'lli DO NEED TO SCHEDULE, OF13 COURSE, THE CASE FOR TRIAL. BUT I ALSO WOULD ASK,14 YOUR HONORr TO DIRECT THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT TO15 COOPERATE. I HAVE TRIED TO SCHEDULE THE DEPOSITION OF THE16 DEFENDANT. I'VE GIVEN THEM BASICALLY ANY DATE, ANY TIME,17 AND THEY'RE JUST REFUSING TO COOPERATE. AND I NEED YOUR18 ASSISTANCE.1920

THE COURT:SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE A MOTION TO COMPEL ORTHAT HAS TO BE DONE BY NOTICE.

21 MS. TAITZ: OKAY.22 MR. HILDRETH: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS BRIAN HILDRETH23 REPRESENTING DAMON DUNN.24 IF I COULD REFER THE COURT TO ELECTIONS CODE25 SECTION 16520, IT SAYS THAT UPON FILING OF THE ELECTION26 CONTEST, THE PRESIDING JUDGE IS REQUIRED TO SCHEDULE THE

1


28/39

1 HEARING BETWEEN TEN AND 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE. AND SO WE2 WOULD REQUEST THAT A HEARING BE SET TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER3 WITHIN TEN OR 20 DAYS.4 MS. TAITZ: THIS IS A FRAUD CASE, NOT JUST AN5 ELECTION CONTEST. THERE ARE MULTIPLE CAUSES OF ACTION. SO6 HE IS JUST PLAYING GAMES.7 THE COURT: WELL, I'M SORRY. THE CASE WAS FILED8 IN JUNE. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE YOUR HEARING 20 DAYS AFTER9 THAT?

10 MR. HILDRETH: CORRECT.11 THE COURT: HOW COME YOU DIDN'T ASK FOR THAT IN12 THE NUMEROUS HEARINGS WE HAD BEFORE? OR DID YOU?13 MR. HILDRETH: NO. I MEAN, I THINK WE WERE14 WAITING TO SEE HOW THE CASE DEVELOPED. AT THIS POINT, THE15 CASE IS OBVIOUSLY MOOT, SINCE DAMON DUNN DID NOT WIN THE16 GENERAL ELECTION. SO CONSENTING HIS ELECTION AS THE PRIMARY17 NOW IS ESSENTIALLY MOOT.18 MS. TAITZ: MAY I RESPOND, YOUR HONOR?19 THE COURT: OKAY. LET'S TRY TO SORT THIS OUT.20 I'VE GOT A CIVIL ACTION CLAIMING ELECTIONS21 FRAUD, ELECTION CONTEST, VOTER FRAUDT INJUNCTIVE DEC RELIEF.22 THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION THERE.23 AND I'VE GOT A REQUEST TO REQUIRE THE PARTIES24 TO COOPERATE IN DISCOVERY.25 AND I'VE ALSO GOT A REQUEST TO SET A HEARING26 UNDER ELECTIONS CODE 16520 WITHIN 20 DAYS OF TODAY'S DATE.

2


29/39

1 AND IF I LOOK AT THE ELECTIONS CODE --2 WHICH IS NOT MENTIONED IN YOUR CASE3 MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, COUNSEL. I DON'T SEE IT MENTIONED4 HERE. WHERE IS THAT? I MISSED IT.S MR. HILDRETH: IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE CASE6 MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT.7 THE COURT: OKAY. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT MENTIONED8 ANYWHERE, SO -- WELL, THERE'S AN APPLICATION FOR -- I THINK9 IT WAS THE PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR AN EXPEDITED TRIAL.10 MAYBE I SHOULDN'T HAVE DENIED THAT. AN EXPEDITED TRIAL11 UNDER 16520 SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED. IS THAT WHAT YOUfRE12 TELLING ME, COUNSEL?13 MS. TAITZ: HE OPPOSED IT.14 THE COURT: I'M SORRY.15 COUNSEL?16 MR. HILDRETH: YOU CERTAINLY COULD HAVE GRANTED IT17 UNDER 16520.18 THE COURT: WELL, IF I'VE DENIED IT BEFORE,19 WHAT -- HOW IS THAT REQUEST AN APPROPRIATE REQUEST NOW?20 MR. HILDRETH: I'M JUST POINTING IT QUT TO THE21 COURT AGAIN. SO IF MS. TAITZ WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE HEARING22 ACTUALLY BE HEARD AND NOT SUBJECT TO A MOTION TO DISMISS,23 THEN THAT SEEMS TO BE HER VEHICLE TO GET THIS HEARING ON24 CALENDAR.25 THE COURT: WELL, OKAY. LET'S -- I'M NOT OKAY.26 WHAT I JUST HEARD WAS THAT THE DEFENSE WAS GOING TO BE READY

3


30/39

1 TO GO TO TRIAL IN 20 DAYS.2 OKAY. SO WHEN WILL YOU BE READY TO GO TO3 TRIAL?45

MS. TAITZ:THE COURT:

WELL, SINCE THEY DID NOT COOPERATE --I'VE JUST ASKED THE QUESTION. I DON'T

6 NEED ANY REASONS. AND YOU CAN MAKE MOTIONS TO COMPEL. AS A7 MATTER OF FACT, YOU HAD FIVE MONTHS TO CONDUCT -- SIX MONTHS8 TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY.9 MS. TAITZ: I DID. I FILED A MOTION. THERE WAS A

10 TECHNICAL ERROR. AND THAT WAS RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.11 AND, ACTUALLY, AT THAT TIME MR. HILDRETH12 TRIED TO INTIMIDATE ME. HE TRIED TO FILE A RESPONSE ASKING13 FOR SANCTIONS. AND THEN HIS OW N RESPONSE WAS NOT FILED14 PROPERLY BECAUSE HE HAD WRITTEN IT TO THE WRONG COURT, TO15 LAGUNA HILLS COURT INSTEAD OF SANTA ANA. SO WE HAVE A WHOLE16 HISTORY HERE.17181920212223242526

THE COURT: DR. TAITZ -- DR. TAITZ -- HOLD ON,DR. TAITZ. YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO FILE A MOTION TO COMPELTHEM TO COOPERATE FOR FIVE MONTHS?

MS. TAITZ:THE COURT:

I HAVE FILED A MOTION.WELL, WHEN IS IT GOING TO BE HEARD,

THEN?MS. TAITZ:THE COURT:MS. TAITZ:

MR . HILDRETH -~WHEN IS IT GOING TO BE HEARD?I WILL REFILE IT.

THE COURT: WELL, WAIT A MINUTE. YOU TOLD ME YOU

4


31/39

2

THE COURT: SO LET ME BACK UP AND MAKE SURE WE'RE

1 FILED IT. WHEN IS THAT MOTION?MS. TAITZ: I SUBMITTED THIS TO THE COURT. THERE

3 WAS A TECHNICAL ERROR AND --45 IN SYNC.6 HAVE YOU SET A HEARING ON ANY MOTIONS THAT7 ARE GOING TO BE HEARD AT THIS TIME?89

10111213141516171819 HOW COME WE DONtT KNOW NOW?

MS. TAITZ: NO.THE COURT: OKAY. SO YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT --MS. TAITZ: YES.THE COUKI: -- TO GET THE DEPOSITION OR SOMETHING

TAKEN CARE OF?MS. TAITZ: YES.THE COURT: BESIDES THAT DEPOSITION, t'i'HATELSE

HAVE YOU GOT?MS. TAITZ: PROBABLY THERE WILL BE SEVERAL

DEPOSITIONS.THE COURT: OKAY. WE'RE INTO THIS SEVEN MONTHS.

20 MS. TAITZ: WE ALSO HAD AN ISSUE OF ELECTIONS.21 THE ELECTION WAS IN NOVEMBER AND THERE WAS22 THE COURT; WAIT A MINUTE. I DIDN'T SLOW THIS23 CASE DOWN BECAUSE OF THE ELECTION.24 MS. TAITZ: I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T. YOUR HONOR, I25 WILL BE READY. I HAVE JUST HEARD MOST CASES HAVE BEEN26 SCHEDULED FOR JUNE FOR TRIAL. I WILL BE READY BY THEN.

5


32/39

1 THE COURT~ THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT CORRECT. THOSE2 CASES WERE --3 LET'S GO BACK TO COUNSEL ON THE PHONE.4 ARE YOU MAKING A REQUEST UNDER 16520, OR ARE5 YOU SAYING THAT MS. TAITZ -- DR. TAITZ SHOULD BE DOING THAT?6 MR. HILDRETH: NO. I'M MAKING THE REQUEST NOW7 THAT THE HEARING BE SET ON THIS TO RESOLVE IT BETWEEN TEN8 AND 20 DAYS FROM TODAY'S DATE.9 THE COURT: OKAY. THAT REQUEST IS NOT APPROPRIATE

10 AT THE CMe. IT NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH NOTICE. SO THAT11 REQUEST IS DENIED. WHETHER YOU'RE ENTITLED TO IT OR NOT,12 LET'S BRING IT TO MY ATTENTION IN SOME FASHION WHERE WE'LL13 ALL BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS IT.14 MR. HILDRETH: SURE.15 THE COURT: AND BY THE WAY, IF THAT WAS -- I'LL16 HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT THE CODE17 WOULD ALLOW SOMEBODY TO JUST PULL THE TRIGGER AT ANY POINT18 DURING THE LITIGATION AND SAY, WELL, WE HAVE A HEARING IN19 TEN TO 20 DAYS. IT MAY BE THAT'S WHAT THE ELECTION CODE20 SAYS, BUT I'VE ALREADY DENIED ONE REQUEST. WHETHER IT WAS21 BASED ON THAT CODE SECTION OR NOT, I DON'T RECALL.22 BUT I DID -- AND BY THE WAY, I DID -- I'M23 SORRY. I DID DENY A REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED TRIAL, IN24 PART, BECAUSE OF YOUR OPPOSITION TO IT. SO I THINK THAT25 MATTER RAS BEEN RESOLVED. BUT WEiLL SEE, IF YOU WANT TO26 BRING IT TO MY ATTENTION.

6


33/39

1

MS. TAITZ: NO.THE COURT~ GET THIS RESOLVED.MS. TAITZ~ NO.THE COURT: JUNE 6TH.MS. TAITZ: THAT'S FINE.THE COURT: 10:00 A.M.

AND WHATEVER MOTIONS GET HEARD. I UNDERSTAND

UNLESSf DR. TAITZ, YOU WOULD BE READY IN A2 MONTH OR SO. I CAN GIVE YOU A TRIAL IN A MONTH OR SO.3456789

10 THAT THERE'S A VARIETY OF ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE RESOLVED,11 BUT I'M NOT GOING TO START DECIDING THEM UNLESS YOU ALL TELL12 ME IT'S TIME FOR ME TO DECIDE THEM. 50--13141516

MS. TAITZ: YOUR HONOR --THE COURT: WE'LL HOLD OFF ON THAT.MS. TAITZ: ONE MORE ISSUE.

r REPEATEDLY REQUESTED A TRANSCRIPT OF THE17 PRIOR HEARING. AND I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS THIS LADY OR18 SOMEBODY ELSE. I THINK IT WAS ANOTHER LADY WHO DID19 TRANSCRIBING. SHE STATED THAT SHE WILL CALL, SHE WILL GIVE20 ME THE QUOTE AND --21 THE COURT: I DON'T DEAL WITH THAT. THAT'S NOT MY22 JOB TO GET YOU A TRANSCRIPT.23242526

MS. TAITZ: OKAY.THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

JUNE 6, TEN O'CLOCK, IS YOUR TRIAL DATE.MR. HILDRETH: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

7


34/39

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526

THE CLERK: IS THIS A COURT TRIAL, YOUR HONOR?THE COURT: I THINK IT'S A COURT TRIAL. DEC

RELIEF.MS. TAITZ: NO. JURY TRIAL. IT'S A JURY TRIAL.THE COURT: WHAT MATTERS DO YOU THINK YOU ARE

ENTITLED TO A JURY ON?MS. TAITZ: FRAUD.THE COURT: WELL, WAIT A MINUTE. IT'S ELECTION

FRAUD, ISN'T IT?MS. TAITZ: IT'S NOT JUST ELECTION. IT SAYS

FRAUD ~~THE COURT: WAIT A MINUTE. SO YOU -- FRAUD

AGAINST YOU?MS. TAITZ: YES.THE COURT: OKAY. WE'LL HAVE TO DECIDE.

SOME OF THE ISSUES YOUtRE NOT ENTITLED TO AJURY ON. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

MS. TAITZ: YEAH.THE COURT: INJUNCTION, DEC RELIEF --MS. TAITZ: ABSOLUTELY.THE COURT: -- SOME OF THE ELECTION STUFF, I'M NOT

SURE YOU'RE ENTITLED TO THAT ON.SO WE'LL SET IT FOR A COURT TRIAL -- JURY

TRIAL. LET'S SAY TEN DAYS, BECAUSE -- I ASSUME I CANWHITTLE THAT DOWN, BUT WE'LL SEE.

MS. TAITZ: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

8


35/39

9

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526

THE COURT: JUNE 6TH.(PROC EE DI NGS C ON CLUD E D. }


36/39

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COONTY OF ORANGE

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

I T JENNIFER S. LEWIS, CSR NO. 9476, RPR,CRR, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THEFOREGOING REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT, PAGES 1 THROUGH 9, IS AFULL, TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPTION OF MY SHORTHAND NOTESTHEREOF, AND A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT STATEMENT OF THEPROCEEDINGS HAD IN SAID CAUSE.

DATED AT SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, THIS 9THDAY OF JANUARY! 2011.

DATE JENNIFER S. LEWIS, CSR NO. 9476OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER


37/39

EX HIB IT 3


38/39

Print Page 1of2

From: Bill Van Allen ([email protected])To: [email protected];Date: Wed, March 17,20104:17:51 PMCc:Subject: FW: Debra Bowen attacks Orly Taitz fund raiser presser sent to BAN 1Richard Winger,...'l~

Dear nich.ml,liw fidd of Hcpublicflns ':!ilf) ~';Inmto unscat Dobm Hm'!wI ll:,Gr:njo~nia's SGl;iutalY Qi ~;t;] te is now :.; : ,1 ,ami ~'/e just rcc!"~l(1SOIl1~;:)m~v.ingneViS' --Oily Taitt, the leader of the $0-coiled "blrther" movement that has spent yoarschallenging President Ohmna's citizenship, is fUOIlinuail amst Uehra tor Sflcmt,Hy Of State.I\S ~ml.!:mm',', Yiearthy dc'!elopar Damon Dunn, ':HlO says heqot inio the (ace at Karl Rove's 1 1 1 (Jing, is aisu funninu for i lleHeputi i! :


39/39

Print P ag e 2 0f2

Sif1cerGI~',S~$veB~(kclnSf)nior f\{jviserSecml

Documents

TAITZ v DUNN - 80 - Motion for Clarification 381664 ROA 80