MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Proof of Service

Orly claims to have properly served Astrue in his official government function but her ‘evidence‘ shows service of documents for her Indiana case. Furthermore, Orly claims that Astrue received his First Amended Complaint and summons through his attorney Helen L. Gilbert. (Hat Tip Dr Conspiracy)

She attests to this under penalty of perjury… Who is she trying to fool here with her unrelated service notes (NBC: See however note by Dr C below)? Really Orly, this is sloppy, even for you.

AFFIDAVIT OF ORLY TAITZ REGARDING ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT DEFENDANT MICHEL ASTRUE

1. Defendant Astrue was notified about his legal action and he received the First Amended Complaint of this action originally pending in the Superior Court of Mississippi on April 13,2012 through his attorney Helen L. Gilbert at Helen.L.Gilbert@usDOJ.eov. He did not respond. (*)

2.Defendant Astrue was served by Process server Daniel Williams docketed herein as Document 54-1 Same Day Process Service, Inc. (**)

1219 11th St,NW Washington DC 20001

(202) 398- 4200

Internal Job lD: 62302

Defendant Astrue never responded.

Of course not, he was not served.

3. Due to the fact that all prior attempts to get a response from defendant Astrue failed, Plaintiff Taitz is requesting this court to grant her Motion to compel production of documents under FRCP 37 as part of post default discovery.

Perhaps Orly has any real proof of service?

Footnotes:

(*) Helen LGilbertAttorney, United States Department of. Justice is not Astrue’s attorney, nor does it substitute for properly serving Astrue with the complaint and summons. Helen L. Gilbert did represent Astrue in an unrelated case Taitz v Astrue, filed in DC. Orly has no idea as to how to properly perfect service…

(**) The document shows service for her Indiana Case Taitz v Election Commission case number 49D14-1203-MI-012046 Maybe she thought MI meant Mississippi? The documents all appear to be relevant for her Indiana case… Hilarious… And so unexpected… See below for note by Dr Conspiracy about some of the documents.

The Affidavit

AFFIDAVIT OF PROCESS SERVER

In the Marion County Superior Court in the State of Indiana

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., et al

Plaintiff(s),

v

Election Commission, et al

Defendant(s),

Case Number : 49D14-1203-MI-012046

Attorney: NONE

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

29839 Santa Margarita, #100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

ID: 62302

Legal documents received by Same Day Process Service, Inc. on 10/05/12 at 5:51 PM to be served upon United States of America, by serving Department of Justice , at 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW , Washington, DC, 20530

I, Daniel Williams, swear and affirm that on October 09,2012 at 1:16 PM, I did the following:

Served Government Agency by delivering a conformed copy of this 60 B Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction Due to Errorl Motion to Augment; Reconsider Motion for Preliminary Iniunction; Exhitrits; First Amended Complaint – Petition for an Emergency Injunction From General Election, Permanent [njunction, Declaratory Relief, Treble Damages in RICO; to DONNA WHITLEY as Mail Clerk & Authorized Agent at 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20530 of the government agency and informing that person of the contents ofthe documents.

Description of Person Accepting Serviee:

Sex: Female Age: 36 Height: 5”4″-5’8′ Weight: Over 200 lbs Skin Color: Brown Hair Color: Black

Supplemental Data Appropriate to this Service:

I declare utder-penaity of perjury that the foregoing information contained in this affidavit is true and correct and that I am a professional process server over the age of I 8 and have no interest in the above legal matter,

Daniel Williams

Process Server

Intemal Job ID:62302

Note: Dr Conspiracy noted that

The only thing on the document list that fits Mississippi is this item from a long list of the papers served: “First Amended Complaint – Petition for an Emergency Injunction from General Election, Declaratory Relief, Treble Damages in RICO,” which is the name of the first amended complaint in Mississippi (filed April 19, 2012).

Was the summons delivered? The correct one(s)? How can we tell?

About these ads