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)

 

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading