You know how it is in Orly Taitz land. Everybody is out to get her and to sabotage her cases. The most recent report from her blog says that the court deep-sixed her latest brief in Taitz v. Colvin, and not only that: When she tries to call the court, her call is disconnected! The article is titled: “So far MD District Court did not docket my reply with the complaint about prior documents disappearing from the docket. what is going on? A complaint will be sent directly to Judge Hollander. I need your assistance in calling the court and asking to docket the reply and exhibits ASAP. Every time I call the court at (410) 962-2600, I am being disconnected[.]” [Link to Taitz site]
What is her solution?
- Write a blog article about it!
- Ask her readers to call the court for her!
- Promise to complain to the judge!
To put this in perspective, Orly wrote this desperate plea for help yesterday and the court received her paperwork [wait for it] yesterday. If Taitz had let the dust settle until today, all would have been made clear.
I am not a lawyer, but just nosing around I have found this legal principle that says the movant gets the last word. For example:
- Plaintiff: Mommy, Tommy hit me!
- Defense: Did not!
- Plaintiff: Did too!
At this point, the dispute would be “fully briefed.” Tommy has had his say in the matter. Now Tommy might want to say something else, but he has to get permission first:
- Mommy, can I please say something else?
Should Tommy’s mother give permission for something else to be said, that would be called a “surreply” and then another response to that could be made.
- Defense: Did not!
- Plaintiff: Did too!
In Taitz v. Colvin we have docket entries as follows on a Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment:
|28||1/30/2014||MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by Carolyn Colvin Responses due by 2/18/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Loucks, Allen) (Entered: 01/30/2014)|
|31||2/19/2014||RESPONSE in Opposition re 28 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment filed by Orly Taitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(aos, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/19/2014)|
|32||3/2/2014||REPLY to Response to Motion re 28 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Carolyn Colvin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Loucks, Allen) (Entered: 03/02/2014)|
So Defense’s Motion to Dismiss has been fully briefed. Orly then files a “Reply in support of a motion for summary judgment in favor of plaintiff” only there was no such motion that I can find (however, see update below). Here’s how the court sees Orly’s last brief, in an entry docketed today indicating Taitz’ brief would be returned to her:
An attorney commenting on this article points out that Taitz had attempted to make a motion for summary judgment piggy backed on another motion (a practice the courts frown on and may disallow). I do not know the process through which the Court discovered what Taitz was trying to do, but later yesterday, the court docketed her brief.
Taitz in a new article today [link to Taitz web site] and speaking of herself in the third person, describes the appearance of the docket entry as “miraculous” and goes on to take attorney Scott Tepper and unnamed web sites to task for assassinating her character. So here’s the best I can do by way of apology:
Orly, what you did in filing your brief in Taitz v. Colvin was not completely inept as I first thought, but just procedurally confusing and contrary to best practices. You’ll still lose the case.
For everyone’s reading pleasure, here is the brief and the attached exhibits:
And now for something completely different:
I realize that targeted advertising doesn’t have any special significance, but tell me, is there some resemblance here?