Main Menu

Taitz gets sucky birthday present

Happy Birthday Orly! Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth probably didn’t know  it was your birthday when he wrote a rather unpleasant (from your point of view) ruling today in the case of Taitz v Astrue. It’s not without irony that the judge wrote: “Today is not her lucky day.”

The order itself is quite brief and to the point:

Final judgment is hereby entered for defendant, dismissing this case with prejudice.

“With prejudice” means that you can’t file the same case again – the complaint can’t be “fixed.” I’m sure you will move for reconsideration, but it won’t help.

I can’t say I’m sorry, but I have some sympathy for how you feel, losing the case that you made such a big fuss over, and on your birthday, even.

Here’s the memorandum

TAITZ v ASTRUE (USDC D.C.) – 33 – MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth – gov.uscourt…

Read more:

, ,

27 Responses to Taitz gets sucky birthday present

  1. avatar
    richCares August 30, 2011 at 8:52 pm #

    Taitz told WND she is submitting a motion for reconsideration based on new evidence that includes an affidavit from an individual who obtained a government affirmation that the number Obama is using doesn’t match his name.
    .
    Good luck with that, Orly is not aware that a dismissal with prejudice pretty much kills a case, it’s over!

  2. avatar
    G August 30, 2011 at 10:38 pm #

    Personally, I think Orly got the birthday present she deserved.

  3. avatar
    El Diablo Negro August 30, 2011 at 10:48 pm #

    To boil it down into four letters, the judge said “GTFO”

  4. avatar
    JoZeppy August 30, 2011 at 11:23 pm #

    richCares: Taitz told WND she is submitting a motion for reconsideration based on new evidence that includes an affidavit from an individual who obtained a government affirmation that the number Obama is using doesn’t match his name..Good luck with that, Orly is not aware that a dismissal with prejudice pretty much kills a case, it’s over!

    Now would that be an affidavit from the person who illegally obtained her prior exhibits that the court was forced to ignore?

    And then, of course, there is the question of why didn’t she provide the court this evidence earlier? For it to be newly discovered evidence, it actually has to be that. Newly discovered. If she could have provided it to the court earlier, it will not be considered newly discovered. And if she has it hours after her dismissal, she’s going to have an uphill battle showing she couldn’t have provided it earlier.

    Then the next question how is an affidavit claiming to have received affirmation from the government, not hearsay?

    And one final issue, how is it relevant? As the court noted, she’s still stuck with the issue that she is asking for a document to confirm that a social security number belongs to a particular living individual, making it exempt from FOIA.

  5. avatar
    GeorgetownJD August 31, 2011 at 12:46 am #

    Anyone know the date of Orly’s wedding anniversary? That would be an excellent day for Judge Lamberth to rule on Taitz v. Ruemmler, another FOIA case in which Orly attached the same illicitly-procured documents as exhibits to her complaint.

  6. avatar
    Sean August 31, 2011 at 12:48 am #

    Who uses the word sucky anymore?

  7. avatar
    Reality Check August 31, 2011 at 12:54 am #

    It is May 2nd according to Kimba at the Fogbow http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5421&p=270898&hilit=Taitz+wedding#p270923

    GeorgetownJD:
    Anyone know the date of Orly’s wedding anniversary?That would be an excellent day for Judge Lamberth to rule on Taitz v. Ruemmler, another FOIA case in which Orly attached the same illicitly-procured documents as exhibits to her complaint.

  8. avatar
    GeorgetownJD August 31, 2011 at 1:00 am #

    Kewl. That leaves Orly plenty of time to file fifteen motions and 856 exhibits before the case is tossed.

  9. avatar
    BatGuano August 31, 2011 at 1:14 am #

    my favorite quote from the comments at ORYR:

    ” Whether she’s a good or bad lawyer is irrelevant. The more inept she is the more praise she deserves.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcwPS-ERawA

  10. avatar
    Keith August 31, 2011 at 3:57 am #

    Sean:
    Who uses the word sucky anymore?

    I dunno.

    Who writes this blog?

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 31, 2011 at 6:50 am #

    The Court already said in the Memorandum (in a footnote) that it would not consider any evidence obtained illegally. Do you think she got an affidavit from Spencer Kornhaber, who legally verified the number used on the Selective Service registration?

    richCares: Taitz told WND she is submitting a motion for reconsideration based on new evidence that includes an affidavit from an individual who obtained a government affirmation that the number Obama is using doesn’t match his name.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 31, 2011 at 6:51 am #

    🙄

    Sean: Who uses the word sucky anymore?

  13. avatar
    Tarrant August 31, 2011 at 9:08 am #

    I love that she claims “explosive new evidence” and says it’s…a sworn affidavit. I absolutely love the birther lovefest over “sworn affidavits”. For some reason state-certified documents are not to be trusted, but random words on paper written by any yahoo that they say they’re willing to “swear to” are 100% trustworthy.

    “An anonymous person has signed a SWoRN affidavit that another anonymous person told them that there’s no record in an unnamed government database!”. OH MY GOD STOP THE PRESSES FRAUD FRAUD TREASON.

  14. avatar
    The Magic M August 31, 2011 at 1:52 pm #

    I think it’s time for this reference:

    [the Black Knight continues to threaten Arthur despite getting both his arms and one of his legs cut off]
    Black Knight: Right, I’ll do you for that!
    King Arthur: You’ll what?
    Black Knight: Come here!
    King Arthur: What are you gonna do, bleed on me?
    Black Knight: I’m invincible!
    King Arthur: …You’re a loony.

  15. avatar
    JoZeppy August 31, 2011 at 2:05 pm #

    I think I’ve figured out what Orly’s “explosive new evidence” is…..Obama has unpaid parking tickets from this Harvard days…she just posted on her site:

    “I need your help!
    Posted on | August 31, 2011 | 2 Comments

    Obama had a lot of unpaid traffic tickets, when he went to Harvard. even then he thought he was above the law. I need certified copies of all of his tickets, as well as tickets of his illegal alien uncle Omar and his illegal alien aunt Zeutuni”

    Wow….Parking tickets from 20 years ago?

  16. avatar
    Daniel August 31, 2011 at 2:36 pm #

    The funny part of it is that on her web site Orly is trying to claim that this is just a minor setback. “Dodged a bullet there” she says.

    At what point does optimism turn into delusion?

  17. avatar
    Origuy August 31, 2011 at 2:45 pm #

    How much do you suppose I could get for the tag Obama tore off a mattress when he was at Occidental?

  18. avatar
    BatGuano August 31, 2011 at 2:55 pm #

    Daniel:

    At what point does optimism turn into delusion?

    jan 20, 2009

  19. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny August 31, 2011 at 2:59 pm #

    Origuy:
    How much do you suppose I could get for the tag Obama tore off a mattress when he was at Occidental?

    I don’t know, but surely a lot more than for the tag Orly tore off a mattress when she was at Cluj in Romania.

  20. avatar
    JoZeppy August 31, 2011 at 3:16 pm #

    Daniel: The funny part of it is that on her web site Orly is trying to claim that this is just a minor setback. “Dodged a bullet there” she says.At what point does optimism turn into delusion?

    Stay of execution is a better description than dodged the bullet.

    I think the fact that she thinks that she has even the slightest chance on recon (the technical possiblity that she could prevail on recon the only reason that the Court in Hawaii didn’t kill her motion) is certainly delusional rather than optimism.

  21. avatar
    Daniel August 31, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    I can’t help but wonder if the Judge in Hawaii wants to go to hearing if only to make sure that justice is seen to have been served, and the delusional Orly got a fair shake.

  22. avatar
    JoZeppy August 31, 2011 at 4:37 pm #

    Daniel: I can’t help but wonder if the Judge in Hawaii wants to go to hearing if only to make sure that justice is seen to have been served, and the delusional Orly got a fair shake.

    It’s one of those things where just pushing back the hearing to give the other court time to deny her motion for recon doesn’t prejustice either side, so it makes sense to ensure there is finality before putting the final stake through her heart. And, of course, it also moots her whine about her not being served 21 days before the hearing.

    If it doesn’t hurt anyone to keep a matter open a couple more months, most judges will just let it slide a while. Or perhaps the Court just really wants to see what kind of reply Orly will throw together before denying her motion.

  23. avatar
    The Magic M September 1, 2011 at 4:04 am #

    JoZeppy: Or perhaps the Court just really wants to see what kind of reply Orly will throw together before denying her motion.

    No, as much as it would be understandable. Courts don’t work that way. They close whatever they can close, they aren’t waiting for popcorn entertainment.

  24. avatar
    JoZeppy September 1, 2011 at 10:16 am #

    The Magic M: No, as much as it would be understandable. Courts don’t work that way. They close whatever they can close, they aren’t waiting for popcorn entertainment.

    well…that was my admittedly weak attempt at humour.

    But irrespective. As much as courts like to get things off the docket, they also don’t want to deal with procedural complications if they don’t have to. The court could dismiss as moot Orly current motion before them. However, if my some miracle, she did get the court amend, or alter its dismissal, that could complicate things. So the court could wait for DC to deny recon, at which point they can safely dismiss her motion as moot. Or, if DC still hasn’t put the last nail in Orly’s SSn whine, they could dismiss her motion to compel as irrelevent to the underlying litigation, improperly served, or the laundry list of reasons we’ve discussed over and over. The one thing they couldn’t do under those circumstances is grant her motion, because unless and until DC alters the dismissal, there is no underlying action to support the subpoena.

  25. avatar
    The Magic M September 1, 2011 at 12:00 pm #

    JoZeppy: well…that was my admittedly weak attempt at humour

    Just wanted to make sure – some anti-birthers’ speculations on certain court actions tend to read like a mirror image of birthers’ wishful thinking, as in “the judge only didn’t grant the motion for summary judgment so the birthers could embarrass themselves some more”.

  26. avatar
    JoZeppy September 1, 2011 at 1:10 pm #

    The Magic M: Just wanted to make sure – some anti-birthers’ speculations on certain court actions tend to read like a mirror image of birthers’ wishful thinking, as in “the judge only didn’t grant the motion for summary judgment so the birthers could embarrass themselves some more”.

    To be honest, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Judge doesn’t even know who Orly is yet. And my guess, the Judge has yet to read anything filed in this case (most judges I encountered will only start reading either after the reply is filed, or if a hearing is already scheduled, just before the hearing…if at all).

    As amusing as we may find Orly, I don’t think there is a single judge out there that appreciates having his docket cluttered with her nonsense. We’ve seen this come out in some of the very deep sacrasm written into the opinions smacking her down, and we’re beginning to see Judge Lamberth’s patience in particular start to weigh thin (I’ve only seen one other occasion where a federal judge calls an attorney stupid in a written order).

  27. avatar
    Majority Will September 4, 2011 at 10:11 am #

    Birther Leader Orly Taitz May Not be U.S. Citizen

    Interesting speculation.

    ” . . . she has not yet produced definitive documentation that she is of Jewish heritage, and thus that her Israeli citizenship is valid. This is a vital point because she became a naturalized American citizen in 1992, based on that presumed Israeli citizenship.”

    If this is true, we may lose every Irony Meter ever made.

    (source: http://soul-wisdom.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-is-leader-of-super-patriotic-us.html)

    H/T to David H. (https://www.facebook.com/groups/225611107468288/)