Educating the Confused – Orly and timely filing of appeal

On July 29th Orly writes: Taitz v Colvin was appealed to the 4th Circuit

However the lower court ruled on May 13, 2014 and the time for appeal is 60 days (FRAP Rule 4(a)(1)(B)(ii)). Instead of filing the appeal, Orly decided to file a foolish motion with the lower court.

As an attorney, plaintiff would have known that she was entitled to appeal this Court’s ruling if she disagreed with it. To my knowledge, she did not do so. Instead, she has filed several post-ruling motions. See ECF 38, ECF 40.
Presently pending is plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case, and for the Court to recuse and to transfer the case to another judge on the ground of actual conflict of interest. See ECF 43. The motion is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 and F.R. Civ. P. 60 (b)(2) and 60 (b)(6).

There is no evidence on Pacer that the case was filed timely with the 4th Circuit. Also Rule 4(a)(4)(A) does not apply:

(4) Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeal.

(A) If a party timely files in the district court any of the following motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion:

…

(vi) for relief under Rule 60 if the motion is filed no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered.

Sincethe motion with the lower court, which was denied, was filed on July 21, well outside the 28 day limit.

07/21/2014 43 MOTION to Reopen Case; Motion for recusal; Motion to transfer case; Second Motion for reconsideration by Orly Taitz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(jf2, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/22/2014)

Perhaps Orly wants to appeal the order denying motion 43? That would be rather entertaining. Never a boring moment with Orly fumbling her way through the rules of the court.

Orly v xxxx – Nothing much to see

Orly has been filing some motions, none with any relevance. Orly has now been reduced to a daily update that the court(s) have not yet ruled on her cases.

For obvious reasons. And she may be surprised when the finally do rule that they will reject her follies.

As I said, Orly’s cases have long since been settled and now we are waiting for the final dismissal.

DC – FORRAS et al v. RAUF et al Klayman – Loses another one

Because defendants have made a prima facie showing that Plaintiffs’ claim “ arises from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest ,” Plaintiffs must now show that they are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their claim in order to survive Defendants’ Anti – SLAPP motion. D.C. Code § 16 – 5502( b)

 

Klayman DC Discipline Hearing

Source

In re Larry E. Klayman, D.N. 048-08
June 23-24 & 26-27, 2014, 9:30 a.m.
Courtroom II

FL – Klayman v Judicial Watch – Surreply denied

Klayman wants to file a sur-reply but the court is not in the mood.

New docket entry:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY AND MEMORANDUM TO CORRECT MISSTATEMENTS TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

04/01/2014 104 ORDER denying 103 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga on 4/1/2014. (ps1) (Entered: 04/01/2014)

Klayman v Judicial Watch, et al. FLSD – Petition to enforce Subpoena denied

Klayman loses another motion, this time in Florida.

2014-03-25 7 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING PETITION TO ENFORCE SUBPOENA by Judge Audrey B. Collins denying 1 Motion to Compel Arbitration: The Court will resolve this matter without oral argument and therefore VACATES the April 7, 2014 hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78, Local Rule 7-15. For the following reasons, the Petition is DENIED. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 03/25/2014)

Why? Simply said, Klayman made some fundamental errors. From the minutes:

First, Petitioner did not attach the relevant documents (e.g., the Taitz Subpoena) to his Petition. As such, Petitioner did not meet his burden of going forward.

Second, the Taitz Subpoena – attached as Exhibit 7 to the Opposition – is deficient in several respects.

So why was the subpoena deficient?

As Judge Simonton noted, Petitioner has not shown that he served Taitz with the subpoena. Petitioner claims he did serve Taitz and purports to attach the proof of service to his memorandum, but the memorandum has no attachments. The Taitz Subpoena’s proof of service page is blank. A Notice of Deposition (attached to the Opposition, Exh. 3) purports to have served counsel for Respondent, and states that pro se parties on the attached service list were served , but the service list does not identify Taitz. In short, Petitioner has not cured his lack of service problem. Petitioner’s subpoena also fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45: this rule requires a deposition subpoena to be issued from the court where the action is pending (S.D. Fl.), but Petitioner obtained his subpoena from a different court (C.D. Cal.). Third, the Scheduling Order in the Florida litigation shows that the discovery deadline passed on January 31, 2014. See Scheduling Order, Opp’n Exh. 2. As such, it appears that Petitioner is no longer entitled to conduct discovery for in the Florida litigation.

Quite a handful simple procedural errors.

Educating the Confused – Orly’s illogical ‘logic’

Orly is excited because she ‘argued’ in a draft ‘letter’ that Judge Moore could forward under 18 USC 3332, the information to a Grand Jury and all would be well. Typically, when Orly files a draft, people refrain from commenting until she has submitted, email, mailed or otherwise distributed the document. Orly however has taken strength from the ‘fact’ that she ‘knows’ that ‘Obama’s Personal Attorney’ tracks Orly’s follies on her Blog (who is Fussy btw?) and presumes that therefore, if Orly writes something which is poorly informed, that Tepper or others would properly educate her. Now I am pleased to hear that Orly recognizes the wisdom of the many Obots both those with and without (me included) formal legal training who have managed to successfully predict the outcome of all her cases, and that she is therefore looking for some help in her legal ‘arguments’.

Obama’s personal attorney Scott J. Tepper stated during phone conference to Judge Wingate in MS, in Taitz et al v Democratic Party, Obama, Pelosi, Onaka, Fussy [sic], Astrue  that he reads Taitz website daily. Taitz  knew that if she is mistaken and there is a precedent stating that the Supreme Court judge of the state court cannot forward evidence of a crime to the federal Grand Jury, Obama’s attorneys will find this precedent and will post it on one of their blogs.

FL – Voeltz v SOS III – Per Curiam Affirmed

I looked at Voeltz III and the docket mentions: 03/13/2014 Affirmed – Per Curiam Affirmed

Did I miss something?

Ruling http://opinions.1dca.org/pc_pdf/13-0083.pdf

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

MICHAEL C. VOELTZ ,
Appellant,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
Florida Democratic Party nominee
for President to the 2012
Democratic National Convention;
KEN DETZNER, Secretary of State of Florida;
FLORIDA ELECTIONS CANVASSING COMMISSION,
Appellee .
CASE NO. 1D 13 – 83

Opinion filed March 13, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County . Kevin Carroll , Judge .

Larry Klayman, Washington, D.C. , for Appellant.

Mark Herron, Joseph Brennan Donnelly, and Robert J. Telfer III of Messer Caparello, P.A., Tallahassee; Stephen F. Rosenthal of Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami , and Richard B. Rosenthal of The Law Offices of Richard B. Rosenthal, P.A., Miami, for Appellee

President Barack Obama; J. Andrew Atkinson, General Counsel, and Ashley E. Davis, Assistant General Counsel for Appellees Florida Secretary of State Kenneth W. Detzner and The Florida Elections Canvassing Commission.

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.

AL – McInnish v Chapman – Klayman responds

Klayman, the attorney whose case was recently ‘dismissed’ all the way up to the Alabama Supreme Court has mentioned that the case may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

While this would certainly please some of the birthers, it seems fair to point out that the issue that remains is extremely narrow and that the Supreme Court would not be interested in hearing about the claims that President Obama is somehow ineligible. As even the dissenting Judge Moore observed, that time has long since passed when he became President Elect.

This well-written and thoughtful opinion by Chief Justice Moore will hopefully give courage to other judges to tell it like it is. Indeed, I have appeals pending in Florida, and the majority decision of the Alabama justices will likely be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court under a petition for writ of certiorari.

Moore told it like it is: It’s over… Next time, the Secretary of State is still under no obligation to determine the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, although she may, in certain cases do so. Alabama and California are on the record, with other states to follow these precedents.

While Klayman may have ‘cases on appeal’ they too will fail to successfully raise the issues the birthers so desperately are seeking even though the courts, and the Department of Health of Hawaii have ruled, verified and certified as to the eligibility of President Obama.

There is btw no majority decision in this case. But we should wait to see if Klayman figures it out.

Few other judges in this nation have the courage of Chief Justice Moore. The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, who held the Clintons to account in the late ’90s and early 2000s and ruled that Bill Clinton had committed a crime, and Richard J. Leon, who just ruled against the National Security Agency’s “almost Orwellian” surveillance on all Americans, are among the most endangered of species.

Ah, Judge Lamberth whose rulings in various cases have all rejected the birther claims. Yes, he too has been very courageous. But perhaps Klayman is confusing courage with ruling in a pleasing manner?

As to Florida, they too ruled that any relief to be found lies with Congress. Good luck to Mr Klayman on that.

Orly’s draft letter to AL Supreme Court Justice Moore

When the law fails, it’s time for flattery [Warning: Link to Orly’s blog, click at your own risk]… In a draft letter to Judge Moore she ‘observes’ that

Orly: I read your brilliant analysis in McInnish v Chapman, a case relating to Barack Obama’s run for the U.S. President while using a fabricated birth certificate.

Orly insists, without much legal supporting evidence that under 18 USC 3332, any judge may forward information to a grand jury. In fact the only legal cases she does reference have no relevance to the issue, but are meant to remind Moore of what a Federal Judge did when he forced Moore to remove a religious statue.

What Orly, and others, may have failed to realize is that there are two statutes under which a grand jury may be convened and these grand juries are very different beasts.

MD – Taitz v Colvin – Orly loses another one

But hope springs eternal..

Judge Hollander writes:

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed before the SS A responded to her FOIA request, and has been rendered moot by the SSA’s response to her FOIA request. If plaintiff takes issue with the adequacy of the SSA’s response, she must amend her complaint to add allegations that the SSA’s response was deficient.

Accordingly, I will dismiss plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, without prejudice, and with leave to amend within 21 days of the docketing of the accompanying Order, so that plaintiff may properly allege the claims she raised in her Opposition. I will also deny plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF 9), without prejudice.

Orly wishful thinking:

The judges stated that the plantiff (sic) Taitz might be correct, however at this time she cannot rule in her favor as her original complaint was filed before SSA responded, so the judge gave Taitz an opportunity to refile a second amended complaint and to add the new allegations. This is a great development. This all but assures that the judge will order the SSA to release the SS-5, Social security application of resident of CT, Harrison (Harry) Bounel, whose CT SSN REDACTED was stolen by Obama and used in his tax returns. Taitz will be very careful not to be Breitbarted or Fuddied in the next 21 days.

She will be FOIA’ed… Such a fool.

So let me predict:

Orly files a motion to amend, the SSA will respond with how the search has been performed and no evidence of any social security application by Harrison Bounel will have been found, or alternatively, it fails to be linked to President Obama’s security certificate.

Orly will object, claiming that there must be such a document and the judge will grant the motion to dismiss, and Orly will file 1) a motion for reconsideration which will be dismissed 2) an appeal which will be dismissed 3) Orly file complain to the Supreme Court who will refuse to grant cert.

President Obama retires from his second term as our President… And nothing happens.

In the mean time Orly will have gone fully ballistic in her claims about Loretta Fuddy and others, and noone will take her seriously. Fascinating… And she single handedly undermined Vogt and Zullo with her release of Johanna’s Long Form Birth Certificate.

Soros should be proud of her.

DC – Taitz v Donahue – Educating Orly

Orly claims

 More obstruction of justice by employees of the USDC court for the District of Columbia. They post a motion for summary judgment filed by defense today, but did not docket my motion to recuse judge Lamberth, which was submitted on on 12.02.2013, 10 days ago. It looks like they got it on the roll with Lamberth and what to push quickly more fraud, forgery and treason through his court. Please, call the clerk of the court, demand they stop obstruction of justice and docket immediately my motion to recuse Lamberth and transfer the case to another judge. Call 202-354-3042 Reggie Johynson, case manager for Lamberth, 202-354-3080 clerk’s office. 202-354-3192

Perhaps the defense lawyers know how to properly serve and docket documents?… Of course, the motion for recusal will be denied anyway as it is totally without merit. Orly, since she is not an admitted lawyer in DC, has to use the mail system to submit her follies. The government can submit by electronic means.

Come on Orly, all this ‘fraud’ is just in your imagination…

Update: Orly was too hasty again…

DC court finally filed my motion to recuse Judge Lamberth. I am afraid that he will refuse to recuse himself and will do Obama one last favor by dismissing this case as well.

Orly is right on one thing, it will be dismissed as the FOIA request has been fulfilled. If Orly wants to litigate something else she will have to file another court case, with expected outcome… She cannot enforce a criminal investigation… So she blames others for her unfamiliarity with the laws, rules and regulations.

Examining Johanna’s LFBC PDF

Orly has made available a fully unredacted PDF of “Hawaii Girl” Johanna XXXX’s long form birth certificate which was obtained in 1995. Orly is, unsurprisingly, confused about the whole issue and believes that this document was obtained in 2011… Sigh…

But now let’s look at the document in more detail:

122,387 bytes Shasum 5c14e5659931ac3db0278ec4207578bdf59c5a13

PDF Format: 1.4
Media Box: 612×396
Content Creator: Canon iR-ADV 8105  PDF
Encoding software: Adobe PSL 1.1e for Canon
Creation Date: May 4, 2011, 10:17 PM
Modification Date: Nov 25, 2013, 10:01 AM

pdfimages -j Johanna-BC.pdf Johanna creates 4 files

Johanna-000.jpg
Rotated: 90 degrees clockwise
Shasum: a71d0fa7abcbc5dd92a2bcc09d1ee8b1cf0e3443  Johanna-000.jpg
150×150 dpi 825×1275 pixels (lots of white at right side (bottom jpeg))
Embedded Comment: “Canon Inc”

Johanna-001.pbm
Rotated: 90 degrees clockwise
Shasum: 4798c65ba40fe11743045ae1ede44f48fceab93e  Johanna-001.pbm
1416×1792 pixels

Johanna-002.pbm
Rotated: 90 degrees clockwise
Shasum: 678ad4edae3ba01e332b3e102ffc441d02261908  Johanna-002.pbm
554×1040 pixels

Johanna-003.jpg
Rotated: 90 degrees clockwise
Shasum: 4992b1910c50520847720aea848b69e8da63d398  Johanna-003.jpg
150×150 dpi 825×1275 pixels
Embedded Comment: “Canon Inc”

There are no obvious halos, and unlike the WH LFBC PDF, the gaps behind the bitmap text that is removed is filled with a background color, which obviously reduces the halo effect

Orly releases Johanna’s LFBC PDF

Orly Taitz has released Johanna xxxx’s LFBC which had previously been released, heavily redacted, by the WND. The document had been procured by Miki Booth and shows a date stamp of 1995. Orly believes that this document was obtained in 2011, but she is mixing up documents.

In a hilarious development, the PDF contains two pages: the first page has one color JPG and two B&W backgrounds… Remember how the Cold Case Posse ‘experts’ had claimed that this is not possible. How many more devices did they miss, I wonder.

The images are rotated, however the background is filled, meaning that no white gaps show up where the text was ‘lifted’.. So no halos… Will do an in-depth report soon

The jpeg

Johanna-000.jpg  825 x 1275 24bit JFIF  N   74244 “Canon Inc”

The Quantization Tables do not match the WH LFBC jpg.

Original creation date: May 4 2011 10:17PM
Modification date: Nov 25, 2013 10:01AM

PDF Producer: Adobe PSL 1.1e for Canon
Content Creator: Canon iR-ADV 8105 PDF

So who modified the document and why, using birther ‘logic’ is a fake, as it contains a ‘layer’?… Even though the WND received the original…?

Thanks Orly for destroying another myth… Now I understand that you do not like Zullo et al, so this is excellent rebuttal.. I am sure the President is grateful for your efficiency…

Color JPEG

Gary Kreep in the News

San Diego CityBeat:

The last right-wing conspiracy? State watchdog and Legislature move to curb Judge Gary Kreep’s dirty tricks

Read also the expose and the FPPC’s ‘warning letter’

In other news, Kreep has been appointed to take over evictions and other limited civil cases.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Judges Kreep, Whitney To Take Over Evictions Downtown

BlawgSD has learned that Judge Gary Kreep and Judge Richard S. Whitney will be taking over evictions and other limited civil cases at the downtown Central Courthouse, San Diego Superior Court spokeswoman Karen Dalton confirmed today. Judge Whitney will take over Department C-6 on December 11 and handle unlawful detainers and limited civil matters. Judge Kreep will take over Department C-7 on January 8 and will also handle unlawful detainers and limited civil matters. Judge Kreep’s move to evictions has been rumored for some time, despite his recent appointment to the traffic court in Kearny Mesa.

Orly’s ‘happy thanksgiving’

Orly is unhappy again because the judges are so mean to her..

Judge Lamberth pardons Indonesian-Kenyan turkey without 1 word of explanation. As usual Judge Lamberth picks a holiday to give a present to Obama and stick it to every american

Nope, just to you Orly, just to you. You filed a 60B2 motion untimely, even though you tried to turn it into a 60B6 motion, the judge clearly understood what you were trying to do.

Happy thanksgiving Orly…

Oh and Orly… Keep up your good work and perfect record…

Oh and that request for a Vaughn Index? Hilarious… You really cannot read, can you?

DC – Farah v. Esquire Magazine – Affirmed…

Klayman loses another one. No respect…

View this document on Scribd

 

Apuzzo Files- Squeeky Fromm educating Mario about syllogism

Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter is having some fun educating Mario, in a hilarious manner, about syllogisms and their value in arguments.

While Mario’s ideas have gathered no relevant acceptance beyond his own blog, and in fact where mostly rejected by the Courts in US v Wong Kim Ark and in Re: Wong Kim Ark, and other court rulings, it’s fascinating to see how Mario uses logical fallacies to support his position.

Do not fail to also read her other articles such as this one

In her Squeeky style show observes How Apuzzo:

Once again he dives head first into a four inch deep pool of Aristotelian Logic to critique one, Bob Quasius of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

and then continues to outline the fallacies in Mario’s claim

The purpose of this article is not to discuss all that is substantively incorrect with Apuzzo’s argument. I will save that for a future post.  To show the problems with his logic it is only necessary to lift the legal covers enough to properly frame the issue.  Since Poor Mario spends a lot of time jumping up and down about an 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett, let’s use it to set the stage:

Never miss a posting at Squeeky Fromm’s blog…

I always thought it to be hilarious how Mario lost his arguments to a recent female graduate from law school… Seems that he cannot earn himself the respect he so desperately seems to crave.

Kessler/Taitz v Gallup/Zullo

Exciting new developments.

Kessler has dropped support for Zullo and has fully embraced Orly.

Kessler reported that he was contacted by Sharon (likely Sharon Rondeau)

Apparently, Zullo had a “shit fit” over Kessler’s interview with Orly.

It’s so funny to see the two sides rip each other apart.

‘Chief’ Kessler, a one man police force, has his shows on blogtalkradio

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

Another defeat in the Klayman lawsuit… Just because Larry’s filings are so much fun…

A per curiam order was filed on Saturday.

The skinny: Klayman’s motions were denied, and the court granted Esquire’s motion to strike Klayman’s screenshots and whatnot. Sadly, Esquire’s motion for sanctions against Klayman was denied, but it was denied without prejudice.