DC – Taitz v Astrue – SCOTUS – Did Orly fail to file petition for writ of certiorari?

In her latest follies with the Supreme Court, Orly is claiming that the clerks of the Court have been undermining her case. When she filed an emergency petition for stay with the Supreme Court, she was told that she had run out of time. While the Clerk apparently failed to realize that Orly had until November 7th to file her appeal in Taitz v Astrue, Orly failed to properly submit her petition for writ of Certiorari. At then end of November, Orly complained and received a letter stating that there was no order from the Clerk’s office denying the petition the right to file a petition for a writ of certiorari and that Orly had made no attempts to file such a petition. In her 12/08 letter to the Supreme Court, Orly ‘explains’:

In aforementioned letter from you Mr. Fossum provided incorrect information, specifically he stated that there was no order from the clerk’s office denying the “right by Petitioner to file a petition for a writ of certiorari” and that there was no attempt to file a writ of certiorari by the Plaintiff. Exhibit 1 December 3 letter from Clerk Sutter signed by Eric Fossum

1. Please, see attached two Federal Express receipts:

a. Exhibit 2. Federal Express Receipt showing a package delivered to SCOTUS on October 2, 2012 9:12 am signed by J Kouros.

b. Exhibit 3 Federal Express receipt showing a second package sent to  SCOTUS on October 7, 2012 and delivered to SCOTUS on October 9, 2012  9:52 am and signed by D. Gamble.

The first package contained the emergency stay and the second package a letter explaining why the time had not expired. As far as I have been able to determine, Orly never filed an actual petition for writ of certiorari. The letter by Eric Fossum:

December 3,2012

Orly Taitz

29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy

Suite 100

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

RE: Motion to Correct Erroneous Denial Taitz v. Astrue; USCA no. 11-5304

Dear Ms. Taitz:

In response to your submission, r’eceived December 3, 2012, a review of previous correspondences, as well as the dockel, indicates there was no attempt to file a petition

foraw t ofcertiora in tbe above-entitled case from the U.S. Cowt ofAppeals for the District of Columbia. Any such submission at this point would be out-of-time as the

petition was due on, or before November 7,2012. Rule 13.

A review of the docket indicates no order fiom the Office ofthe Clerk denying the “right by the petitioner to file a petition for a writ of certiorari.”

The time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari does not run from the issuance of the mandate. Rule 13.3.

Your materials are herewith returned.

About these ads