Exclusive: Breaking: Atty. Orly Taitz Receives Case Number for Motion to Compel for Arpaio and Zullo

IN ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT

by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 19, 2012) — Atty. Orly Taitz has reported that a case number on her Motion to Compel Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Cold Case Posse Mike Zullo to testify at the trial scheduled to begin in Marion County Superior Court on Monday has been assigned.

The trial was scheduled by Judge Sherry Reid, who has allowed witnesses to testify relative to Taitz’s claims that Barack Hussein Obama’s name should not appear on the Indiana ballot because of Social Security fraud, identity fraud, and presenting fraudulent documents to the public.

The case number is CV-2012-015941 and is titled “Taitz v. Arpaio and Zullo, Motion to Compel Appearance at Trial on October 22” and “Motions to Compel Compliance with Court-Issued Subpoena.”

The case was filed at and the number assigned by the Superior Court of Arizona in Phoenix, and Taitz called us “just moments” after she received the case number.  The phone number for the Civil Administration department is 602.506.1497.

Several hours remain prior to the close of business in the Pacific time zone in which Maricopa County and the court are located.  Taitz is hoping that the judge will sign the “proposed order” to compel Arpaio and Zullo to testify on Monday.

Arpaio and Zullo have not indicated that they plan on traveling to Indiana to testify on Monday.  On Thursday, Taitz was a guest with John Sampson, who had testified at the Georgia ballot challenge hearing in January but has stated unequivocally that he will not go to Indiana and threatened Taitz with a defamation lawsuit.  During the interview, Sampson stated that Arpaio’s office had asked him not to testify any further about the information he has because of an ongoing investigation.

“This trial is so important,” Taitz said.   “We’re not asking him [Sampson] to disclose anything that is part of a confidential investigation.   He issued an affidavit; he made it public.  He posted it on the website of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department.  He submitted a report in Florida.  He created a public document saying under penalty of perjury that Obama’s ID is forged.  I submitted those affidavits to the judge, who does not accept phone testimony.  She said all the witnesses have to be in court.  All I am asking them is just to confirm that it is their affidavit and it is true and correct.  I’m not asking them to reveal anything else.”

“We don’t care about the name of the forger; were just asking them to confirm what they made public in the press conferences and appearances in public,” Taitz said of Arpaio and Zullo, referring to the March 1 and July 17 press conferences in which they had contended that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration card were “computer-generated forgeries.”

Taitz said that she and Sampson have worked together for three years prior to Sampson’s association with Arpaio’s office, which reportedly began earlier this year, after which Sampson said he was told not to testify in any more cases about Obama.  In the interview conducted by radio show Peter Boyle, Sampson stated that he is running for the state legislature in his home state of Colorado and stated that that was another reason why he cannot go to Indiana.  Taitz said that Arpaio gave his endorsement to Sampson’s campaign.

Arpaio had said that the questions about Obama’s identity and documentation were “a matter of national security,” to which Taitz referred in the telephone call with The Post & Email.  “If they really believe this is a question of national security, that an individual with forged papers is sitting in the White House, why won’t they testify?” she asked.  “If they got a question from someone, would they be able to say, ‘I can’t answer that because there’s an ongoing investigation?’ we asked, to which Taitz responded, “Absolutely.  I don’t believe anyone would be asking them any more questions; the attorney general doesn’t care who the forger is,” she added.

Taitz said she received a call from “someone in Colorado” that it was announced that on Monday, there will be someone from Arizona on the radio “responding to charges by Atty. Orly Taitz.”  “Instead of being in court and authenticating an affidavit for the judge, they will be on the radio in Colorado.  How does that help anybody?” Taitz asked.

“If the judge signs an order to compel, I’m going to have the service delivered to Arpaio immediately,” she concluded.  She added that the trial will last between two and three hours, so that witness testimony will be “short.”

At 5:06 p.m. EDT, The Post & Email called the Phoenix, AZ Superior Court to inquire if a judge had been assigned to the motion.  We were told that the standard time to assign a judge is “3-5 days.”  When we stated that the motion was filed on an emergency basis regarding a hearing in Indiana on Monday, the clerk told us, “If it’s not an emergency here, it’s treated the same way as any other case, so 3-5 days.”

We called again and asked for the chambers of the supervising judge and were connected with the office voice mail system. The message stated that the clerk cannot return long-distance calls.  We left an email address and stated that we would try back a bit later today to inquire as to whether or not the motion has been assigned to a judge on an emergency basis.

Update, 6:30 p.m. EDT:  The Post & Email contacted the supervising judge’s office a second time, as we did not receive a response to our voice message by email.  The court cannot return long-distance calls.

The clerk asked for the case number, which we provided.  She then said, “We have spoken to about four people about this case.  And who are you?” to which we responded that we were editor of The Post & Email, an electronic newspaper which published a story earlier on the case, that we had called earlier to inquire about a disposition and left a voice message, not actually having spoken to someone.  She then responded, “It’s not even docketed yet.  They are supposed to be bringing in someone for an emergency order, but they haven’t come in yet.”