Case dismissed on the grounds that it’s incomprehensible gibberish.
06/16/2014 4 MEMORANDUM ORDER: It is ordered that the plaintiffs’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus and 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Hearing are DENIED; and it is further ordered that the plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 06/13/14. (tb, ) Modified on 6/16/2014 (tb, ). (Entered: 06/16/2014)
2014-05-29 -SUNAHARA v HAWAII DOH – Summary Disposition Order
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Petitioner,
– against – DAVID PATERSON, et al.,
Respondents.
Index No. 29642108
Justice David I. Schmidt
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR RENEWAL OR REARGUMENT
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York
120 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-8567
JOSHUA PEPPER Assistant Attorney General of Counsel
Orly has been making some pretty outrageous claims about the Maryland case. The Defendant is asking for additional time because the attorney on the case is retiring. Orly immediately raises the rhetoric but fails to understand the Judge’s past ruling
01/13/2014 22 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the Second Amended Complaint by Carolyn Colvin Responses due by 1/30/2014 (Loucks, Allen) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
Department of Justice [sic] is asking Judge Hollander for additional time yet again to make up a third story about the fraud of the century. See pleadings below. When one tells the truth, it is the same story all the time. When one lies, he has to make up new stories every time he is caught in another lie.
All the Department of Justice did was to ask for additional time to respond to Orly’s claim that the search was incomplete. There is no new story, there are no lies.
It was proven time and again that the Social Security administration is hiding the application for a Social Security number REDACTED, which was assigned to Harry Bounel and later fraudulently used by Obama.
Orly’s poor reading abilities may have caused her to believe that there is such an application but the facts so far show that there are no such records found. Orly is accusing the Justice Department of lying but all she has is a failed understanding of what was found.
Obama failed E-verify and SSNVS and was rejected by the Obamacare, as they also could not verify his identy.
From this Orly jumps to a conclusion that somehow Obama is using someone else’s SSN, even though there is no supporting evidence. The failure in e-verify never suggested that President Obama was not using valid SSN.
Now a new attorney was brought to handle this case and he is telling the judge that they will submit a third version of the story.
That is not what the motion states.
Current attorney was an acting US Attorney for Maryland with a staff of 70 attorneys and 70 support staff. They want additional time until February 7. These people should be fighting the fraud in the White House, instead all of these resources are used to fight one civil rights attorney,
who is trying to restore the sanity, rule of law in the White House and stop usurpation of the presidency.
Orly may believe that she is a ‘civil rights’ attorney or trying to restore sanity and rule of law, but there is not much to support her position here.
So far Judge Ellen Hollander was the only judge (federal or state) who showed some decency and integrity and common sense and denied the prior motion to dismiss by the Feds
No Orly, she denied your motion for summary judgment and approved the motion to dismiss. Hint: Plaintiff is Orly, defendant is the acting Commissioner of Social Security.
12/13/2013 19 ORDER granting Defendant’s 7 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and with leave to amend; denying Plaintiff’s 9 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice; setting deadline for Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 12/13/13. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 12/16/13) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
How clueless can one be? And really, who is “lying” here? A fascinating mindset, to say the least.
Orly’s reading abilities are quite poor, her legal successes are of similar quality and quantity.
The Court explained in its ruling in details, the failures by Orly
One of her biggest failures is the flawed belief that President Obama’s SSN was stolen and that it belonged to Harrison J Bounel.
So be prepared for months of more entertainment.
The judge in the case once again denies another frivolous filing by our friend Strunk and reconfirming the simple facts of Natural Born: Birth on soil.
Primarily, plaintiff STRUNK attempts to revisit this Court’s dismissal of his complaint. With respect to plaintiff’s argument that this Court misapprehended his argument that President Obama is not a “natural-born” citizen, plaintiff STRUNK contends that this Court construed plaintiff’s definition of that term to require that both of the President’s parents be natives of the Untied States, when he was arguing that both parents must have been United States citizens. This is of no moment because this Court dismissed the complaint based upon lack of standing and collateral estoppel. Further, as to the merits of this argument, the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.
Thus, anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, irrespective of parentage.
From the Fogbow:
The DOJ is finally expressing frustration with Taitz’s continued violation of the redacting rules. I’ll bet it’s still much easier for Judge Lamberth to simply dismiss the case…again…than to sanction her ass for her willful and repeated violations.
Hilarious note:
2013-11-04 54 0 MOTION to Strike 52 MOTION for Reconsideration re 51 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by CAROLYN W. COLVIN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 11/04/2013)2013-11-04 55 0 Memorandum in opposition to re 52 MOTION for Reconsideration re 51 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, filed by CAROLYN W. COLVIN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
Until she has filed it for sure, I will refrain from comments. It’s as usually completely missing the point…
c. Defense is mistaken about the motion being late under 60B(2). The original decision by this court was appealed to the court of Appeals. The court of Appeals did not issue it’s mandate until August of 2012, so the plaintiff has a year since the mandate, until August of 2013, therefore she is not late filing her motion for reconsideration.
The rules are clear
A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.
The defendant has filed its response a day late due to a confusion on their part, which requires them to petition for leave of court to file.
The opposition can be read here
Text follows. The defendants clearly outline why Orly is too late.. Orly of course disagrees but she will find out soon enough.
Orly mutters
Federal government failed to furnish an opposition or a response to the motion for reconsideration seeking SS-5, Social Security application for Social Security number REDACTED which was assigned to Harrison J. Bounel and which Obama is fraudulently using.
Motion seeking a ruling based on the pleadings by the plaintiff and the original motion are posted below.
There is no need to file a response to the motion for reconsideration, especially when the Court has no choice but to dismiss sua sponte because the court has no jurisdiction. Under Rule 60(b)(2), Orly had 1 year time to file ‘new information’ and she failed to do so. Rule 60(b)(6) is a catch-all rule which has no time limitations attached but Orly has totally failed to explain why she qualifies under said rule.
Expect an order dismissing the complaint.
Orly is also inviting the Court to award sanctions and while she clearly has in mind the opposing counsel, she may get her wish…
Remember that the court wrote just recently
The Court has declined to previously impose sanctions because the defendant has not sought them. However, the Court has directed that prior improper submissions “be kept for consideration of possible sanctions against plaintiff.” Order, July 25, 2011, ECF No. 29.
Why you should not file a motion for reconsideration
Most courts will acknowledge that almost none of these improper and unsound motions are granted; many are not given even a passing consideration by the court. They don’t work; they annoy and alienate the court; and they put the moving party at risk of sanctions, opposing party attorney fees, and contempt penalties. It is hard to conjure a less worthy legal strategy.
Orly walked straight into it… Now let’s hope Judge Lamberth follows through.
On June 18, 2013, the Court issued a brief Minute Order declining to sanction Defendant Orly Taitz (“Taitz”) on very narrow grounds. (Dkt. No. 632.) The Court now expands briefly on that Minute Order to say that another court did award sanctions against Taitz, but they were discovery sanctions that were less severe than other sanctions. This Court therefore decided not to sanction Taitz for misrepresentations about sanctions against her, hoping that the parties would better focus on the substantive issues in this litigation. There was no finding by this Court that Taitz never lied.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149787734/CDCA-ECF-635-2013-06-20-Liberi-v-Taitz-Minute-Order
Orly is explaining that she is filing a motion for reconsideration under the FRCP 60(b)(2) rule, which has a time limit of one year after the case has been decided. Orly is clearly too late.
At the time the case was originally filed and heard, the plaintiffs did not have new information that became available recently. Such information includes recently released census data which shows Harrison J. Bounel being born in 1890, recent disclosure to the public of the 120 year SSA rule, which requires release of SS-5, Social Security original application of “extremely aged individuals”, meaning individuals of 120 years old or older without a consent of such individual and without a death certificate or any other proof of death, as well as recent report from Merlins Information Systems showing Barack Obama using both Bounel’s name and Social Security number in connection to his property at 5046 Greenwood in Chicago as late as 2009.
Another slap down of Orly. Orly, once again, fails to follow the simple rules of the court. Such incompetence. Why is she failing to follow these simple rules. She and Zullo appear to be playing foolish game of undermining their own efforts.
ORDER denying leave to file Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 06/07/2013. (lcrcl3) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
Orly, undeterred by her failures, is now attempting to refile her foolish claims, which are precluded under FRCP 60(b)(2)..(3) as they are filed outside the one year statutory limit.
Orly: Please, check the third time. I made a couple of corrections noticed by readers. I want to make sure this is docketed asap. We need to remove the criminal out of the White House ASAP and send him to prison ASAP for using a stolen social Security number and forged IDs. See, if you notice any other areas that need redaction. thank you
There is of course no evidence that our President is using a stolen SSN and other than a spurious mention of the SSN also belonging to a Harrison J Bounel, there is no evidence that the SSN was assigned to Bounel. In fact, the FOIA response observed that the SSN belonged to a living person, thus destroying Orly’s foolish hopes that she has somehow ‘proven’ that the SSN belongs to someone who lived more than 120 years ago.
So, not only will Orly fail because of having filed too late, but also because she lacks any foundation for her claims. And that appears to be, par for the course, as several courts have tried to educate her on the meaning of evidence…
Poor Orly, so unable to present any legally admissible and relevant evidence, in addition to be unable to follow the Court’s simple but binding rules.
Like Zullo, she seems to be quite able to impeach her own cases… Why she does not file another FOIA, providing the relevant ‘new evidence’ and see how the agency responds? Then she can attempt to file another lawsuit, which of course will fail… But the present path provides no relief from the statutory deadlines.
Butterfly Bilderberg
As it turns out, Judge Lamberth has been out of the office and that is the reason he has not yet reviewed the recent, um, I guess it would be called pleading.
Orlena’s 10-day hissy fit was about something with a perfectly reasonable explanation.
Orly filed a motion for reconsideration and the clerks have yet to enter it on the docket. Orly has been complaining, telling her followers to harass the court, accusing the courts of all unimaginable (except to Orly) things and now it seems that her filing was forwarded by the clerks to the Judge who has been out of the office.
Poor Orly, when she does not immediately gets what she wants, she becomes quite irate. I can’t wait when the court decides sua sponte to dismiss the motion as it was filed too late. A motion based on FRCP 60(b) needs to be filed within 1 year of the decision when it seeks to introduce new evidence.
Will she ever learn to read the rules of the court ?
Orly is moving the goalposts again now that she has read the rule… After admitting in public that she was submitting new evidence and being informed that such motions are time limited, she has moved the argument to rule 60(B)(6) which allows (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
More explanation on 60B Motion. Rule 60B6 allows to bring a motion for consideration any time for any reason that justifies relief. Ending usurpation of the US Presidency by a criminal using a stolen Social Security number definitely justifies relief. Any more questions???
Yes, as you have admitted that the motion was submitted to introduce new evidence, you cannot point to rule (6) and overcome the time restrictions. As I explained here, the DC Court of Appeals, deciding on Orly’s motion for reconsideration in Taitz v Astrue, referenced the following case:
There is also a catch-all clause (6), covering “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” There is no time limit for motions brought under this clause; however, relief under this clause is not available unless the other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.[18] It may be that a showing of changed circumstances would bring plaintiffs within the residual 60(b)(6), although it is far from certain either that the allegations are not covered by clauses (1) through (3) (in which case they would be time barred) or that they present the “extraordinary” circumstances for which relief under 60(b)(6) is reserved.[19]
Poor Orly… She has admitted to having filed under the new evidence rule and now she hopes that the catch-all rule will allow for reconsideration.
She will be so disappointed.
Orly submitted ‘new evidence’ and a motion for reconsideration in a long since closed case in DC. The judge had already warned her about failure to file documents containing the SSN under seal or have them properly redacted, following the Court’s rules on this issue. And of course, she failed again to do so. The documents have so far not been docketed.
She is getting quite upset about a non-issue. The Court will 1) inform her that the documents cannot be filed or will be filed under seal 2) inform her that her motion for reconsideration has been denied.
Just a logical prediction. And thanks to Zullo and his team, the Court will have no problem denying the motion, understanding the lack of relevance of Orly’s filings.
It’s fascinating to watch our ‘Queen’ unravel.
She is now posting phone numbers so that people can contact the court and clerks. I am sure that the Judge will be impressed by her behavior.
Juge Royce Lamberth, Chief Judge of the US District court for DC, who did not post James Rosen subpoena on the docket for 18 months, continues the same pattern of aiding and abetting Obama regime and covering up the most explosive evidence. He refuses to allow his clerks to post on the public electronic docket the most explosive evidence submitted by me on May 24, 2013, showing Obama commiting (sic0 IRS fraud, Social Security fraud, elections fraud when Obama signed his name on the tax return under a stolen Social Security number of Harrison J. Bounel. I am asking all members of the media to call this court and demand to immediately post in PACER, electronic public court docket, the pleadings and evidence received by the court 10 days ago. Please, call Bob Goodlatte, Chair of House Judiciary Committee and Darrel Issa, Chair of House Oversight Committee and demand an immediate investigation of Chief USDC Judge Royce Lamberth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Orly may hope for relief from the District Court, but the court in Goland v CIA, cited below also observes
Relief from a final judgment may be sought in district court through a rule 60(b) motion;[16] our decision not to vacate our affirmance is, of course, without prejudice to plaintiffs’ proceeding under that rule. However, as we have noted, that approach may be difficult or wholly unavailable.
in an independent action seeking relief from a judgment on the basis of newly-discovered evidence and asking for a new trial the plaintiff must meet the same substantive requirements as govern a motion for like relief under Rule 60(b): he must show that the evidence was not and could not by due diligence have been discovered in time to produce it at trial; that it would not be merely cumulative; and that it would probably lead to a judgment in his favor.[22]
The final judgment in the lower court was on 08/30/2011, more than one year before Orly filed her second motion for reconsideration.
| 08/30/2011 | 34 | ORDER granting 21 defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011) |
As the Court in Goland found, there is a one year time limit which is ‘ironclad’. So Orly at best could hope for a ‘catch all’ clause, but the chances of success appear to be minimal… Orly does mention rule (6) but does not explain why this newly discovered evidence is not captured by rule (2)…
Insofar as the additional documents are new evidence, recourse to rule 60(b) is governed (and apparently precluded) by the rule’s strict timing requirements. There is an ironclad one-year limit on the filing of a rule 60(b) motion based on newly discovered evidence. Such motions must be filed within one year from the date the judgment was entered in the district court, which in this case was 26 May 1976 — two years ago and more. The one-year period is not tolled by a pending appeal,[17] and under the federal rules no court has power to extend the deadline.
The one-year time limit in rule 60(b) applies only to motions under clauses (1), (2), and (3), covering fraud between the parties, newly discovered facts, and misconduct of a party. There is also a catch-all clause (6), covering “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” There is no time limit for motions brought under this clause; however, relief under this clause is not available unless the other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.[18] It may be that a showing of changed circumstances would bring plaintiffs within the residual 60(b)(6), although it is far from certain either that the allegations are not covered by clauses (1) through (3) (in which case they would be time barred) or that they present the “extraordinary” circumstances for which relief under 60(b)(6) is reserved.[19]
O R D E R
Upon consideration of the motion to recall mandate, styled as a “motion for reconsideration due to new evidence and decisions”; and the motion styled as a“motion for judgment in favor of the appellant,” it is
ORDERED
that the motions be denied. See Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 370(D.C. Cir. 1978) (“[A]n appellate opinion is based on the record before it, and hence cannot be set aside on the basis of newly discovered facts outside the record.”).
Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored 