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.
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:
And here’s another:
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?