Main Menu

Tag Archives | Taitz v. Colvin

A waste of money

So Orly Taitz wrote in an article yesterday [link to Taitz web site] that she had appealed Taitz v. Colvin to the 4th Circuit. I ran a search on PACER to find the case, wasting ten cents on getting no results as of close of business today. Taitz, no doubt, wasted a lot more filing a case that has zero chance of going anywhere. We’ll just have to wait for the text.

As I was writing this article, my browser rested on the Taitz site and some of those dodgy download messages started appearing.  I thought about adding a sidebar feature, a Taitz web site threat alert level, but that wouldn’t be good unless it was always up to date. Here is today’s alert anyway:

image

I’ve been impressed by the various judicial opinion’s I’ve read in the course of writing about Obama conspiracy stories. It’s sort of a mini legal education. I can’t read Judge Hollander’s decision in Taitz v. Colvin without hearing in the background, “See? This is how to frame a legal argument!”

How do I make this sound interesting?

Readers may recall that the FOIA lawsuit Taitz v. Colvin, an attempt to force the Social Security Administration to release a non-existent record for the apparently equally non-existent Harrison J. Bounel, was decided in favor of the Social Security Administration. They looked, and didn’t find anything.

Cover-up, screams Taitz and blames a conflict of interest on the part of Judge Hollander, who was appointed to the federal bench by Barack Obama.

In an article [link to Taitz web site] including her motion to re-open and recuse, Taitz cites the rules on judicial recusal and, in my opinion, fails to find anything relevant.

Update:

Thanks to a commenter here, perhaps it got more interesting. This is from Taitz’ motion:

Further, revelation of a conflict of interest by a judge represents a new evidence, which satisfies Rule 60(b)(2).

But was it “new evidence”? Here is a screen shot from Orly Taitz’ web site:

image

And here’s another:

image

Taitz responds to comment 41, suggesting that she was well aware last January that Judge Hollander was an Obama appointee. Is Taitz trying to deceive the Court?

Read more:

Orly files treason charges against Obama

Well, she would, wouldn’t she?

Taitz lost her bid to become Attorney General of California, and so despite her recent attempt to play one in US district court, she is still not a prosecutor. She filed a notice with the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, making the prosecution of Obama for treason a cause to reconsider the decision against her in her FOIA lawsuit against the Social Security Administration, Taitz v. Colvin, which Taitz lost on the merits. Taitz also moves that her “evidence” be forwarded to a federal grand jury. This is Taitz’ second motion for reconsideration in this case.

Taitz had argued that (somehow) the recent Bergdahl prisoner swap conducted by the Obama administration empowers her to intervene, even though she does not represent Bowe Bergdahl, nor any of the detainees in Guantanamo. Taitz alleges:

Obama committed a high crime of treason, giving aid and comfort to the enemy under 18 US§ (sic) 2381.

While Taitz does not mention Hitler, she does mention Himmler, Goebbels, Heydrich, Goering and Eichman (sic).

Despite the fact that Taitz published an article today (18 June 2014)  [link to article] on this filing, it had already been denied last week (13 June 2014). Judge Hollander wrote in her Memorandum Opinion that there are no grounds for reconsideration, specifically:

Here, plaintiff has not identified any intervening change in controlling law or newly discovered evidence.

Judge Hollander further states that Taitz’ new emergency motion has nothing to do with her case, saying:

Needless to say, plaintiff’s disagreement with President Obama’s presidential decision-making does not provide support for her allegation that the SSA’s response to her FOIA request was inadequate.

According to NBC News:

The Army has appointed Maj. Gen. Kenneth Dahl, a two-star general, to lead an investigation into the circumstances of Bergdahl’s disappearance and capture.

Congress will also investigate the prisoner swap. There is simply no place for Taitz in this business.

Taitz loses SSA lawsuit on the merits

The somewhat complex litigation history of Taitz v. Colvin is admirably detailed in the Court’s detailed memorandum opinion. US District Judge Ellen L. Hollander declined to dismiss Taitz’ second amended complaint as moot, but rather ruled on cross motions from both sides for summary judgment.

Judge Hollander, a recent Obama appointee, examined in detail the parties’ allegations and representations to determined that, as a matter of law, a trial was unnecessary, and determined that summary judgment should be awarded in favor of the Social Security Administration. She also declined to forward Taitz’ allegations to a grand jury, saying:

…even assuming that 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) provides district courts with discretion to  present evidence to a grand jury or to appoint private litigants to present evidence to a grand jury,  plaintiff has not provided a basis for me to exercise that discretion.

One can learn a lot about FOIA by reading the opinion.

Orly Taitz on a roll

or more accurately a “continuous loop”

  • April 4, Taitz web site, headline: “No decision yet from Judge Hollander…”
  • April 3, Taitz web site, headline: “Still no order from Judge Hollander …”
  • April 2, Taitz web site, headline: “No decision yet in MD case…”
  • April 1, Taitz web site, headline: “No decision yet … Decision by Judge Hollander is expected any day now”
  • March 31, Taitz web site, headline: “No decision yet in case … decision from Judge Hollander any day now…”
  • March 27, Taitz web site, headline: “No decision yet in case…”
  • March 26, Taitz web site, headline: No decision yet in MD case …”
  • March 25, Taitz web site, headline: “still no answer [in MD case]
  • March 24, Taitz web site, headline: “no answer in MD case …”

What’s that all about? Does she think Judge Hollander reads Taitz’ blog?

On a lighter note, while scrolling back through Taitz articles to catalog the headlines preceding, I came across another article titled, “Orly Taitz Really Could Finish Second in the Attorney General Primary Vote — and Go to November” by Greg Diamond of the Orange Juice blog (an Orange County web site). Taitz seems to have just copied [link to Taitz web site] the blog entry in toto. The photo’s HTML <title> attribute copied onto Taitz’s own site is “Orly Taitz (red eyes).”

Solved: The Mystery of the Missing Motion

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?

  1. Write a blog article about it!
  2. Ask her readers to call the court for her!
  3. 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:

ECF # Date Description
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:

image

Update:

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:

Continue Reading →

333333 44444
5555555
6666666