Orly v Obama – Motion for reconsideration denied
“12/09/2010 38 MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 34 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on December 9, 2010. (lcrcl2) Modified on 12/9/2010 (lcrcl2, ). (Entered: 12/09/2010)”
A blood bath…
Orly v Obama – Judge Lamberth cleans up the docket
12/09/2010 38 MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 34 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on December 9, 2010. (lcrcl2) Modified on 12/9/2010 (lcrcl2, ). (Entered: 12/09/2010)
The End
Orly v Obama – Case Closed…
A poster at Orly’s contacted Judge Lambert’s office and was told the case was closed. Of course, that’s what the Docket shows as well… Only Orly…
I called Judge Lamberth’s office and asked why it has been 75 days without a reply on your latest brief. The clerk said that the case was closed. I asked how can the case be closed when he has not ruled on your brief and was told that the case was closed. When I pressed further, the person got short with me and then hung up. When I called again, I got someone else and they gave me the same answer.
Every one of Orly’s supporters needs to call Judge Lamberth and keep the pressure on them. All of these judges are criminals supporting the regime of Obama!
Source: Orly’s Blog
Date Closed: 04/14/2010
What happened? The case was dismissed
ORDER granting 18 Motion to Dismiss the first Amended Complaint. ORDER denying as moot 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ORDER granting 13 motion for leave to file an oppositon to motion to intervene. ORDER denying 6 Motion to Intervene. FURTHER ORDERED denying 17 Motion to Consolidate Cases. This case now Stands DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/14/10. (rje) Modified on 4/16/2010 (rje, ). (Entered: 04/16/2010)
On 6/18/2010 the judge dismissed Orly’s motion for reconsideration
MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 25 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 26 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on June 18, 2010. (lcrcl3) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
And that was the end of it… And yet, Orly has been busy filing documents for a closed case…
Orly v Obama – Doc 35 – Memorandum in opposition
09/13/2010 35 Memorandum in opposition to re 34 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. (Burch, Alan) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
Plaintiff moves under Rule 60(b) but she again presents no information or arguments that come close to meeting the standard for reconsideration.Instead, she rehashes her same arguments and cloaks them as addressing “mistakes of fact” in this Court’s prior decisions. Viewed under any standard, her motion does nothing to make her claims appear any stronger than previously presented.
Orly v Obama – Off the deep end?
Unbelievable… According to Orly, “This affidavit will be included in the appeal to the Supreme Court”.
And Orly continues to blame others for his fiascos?….
Orly v Obama – Doc 33 – Motion for reconsideration denied
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TAITZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Pending before the Court is plaintiff Orly Taitz’s amended combined motion [25] to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and to amend her complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and movant Christopher-Earl Strunk’s motion [26] for reconsideration. Upon consideration of both motions, the defendant’s combined opposition to the motions, the applicable law, and the entire record, it is hereby ORDERED that both motions [25 & 26] are DENIED for the reasons set forth below. Read More…
Irony Orly v Judge Lamberth
Orly posts
It has been 52 days since April 27th, when I submitted my amended Motion for Reconsideration in my case of Taitz v Obama et al in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, no decision yet from the Chief Judge Royce Lamberth.
Good news- he didn’t deny it. He could deny it same day.
Lamberth posts
06/18/2010 33 MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 25 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 26[RECAP] Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on June 18, 2010. (lcrcl3) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
We can only hope for a motion by Orly for the Judge to recuse himself followed by more sanctions..
Orly v Obama – Doc 30 – Supplemental Memorandum
Orly filed another one. This one with a ‘death threat’ which she fails to explain as having any relevance to her case and with a letter that she has exhausted her FOIA options. Of course, Orly may not have carefully read Lamberth’s ruling (see below).
Read the full filing here
05/24/2010 30 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 29 Reply to opposition to Motion filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 05.18.10 letter from SSA, # 2 Exhibit 05.19.10 Death threat)(TAITZ, ORLY) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
Yesterday Taitz received a letter from Jonathan R. Cantor, Executive Director of Office of Privacy and Disclosure of the Social Security Administration dated and signed May 18, 2010. (Exhibit 1 Letter and envelope) As a stroke of providence the letter states “This is our final decision in this matter. If you still believe the decision is incorrect, however, the law permits you to seek review in a district court of the United States
From the ruling by Judge Lamberth
3. Ms. Taitz would be well advised to review the Social Security Administration’s FOIA Regulations, in particular 20 C.F.R. 402.10. See also 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6); see generally Sherman v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 244 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2001)
§402.10 Policy.
As a general policy, SSA follows a balanced approach in administering FOIA. We not only recognize the right of public access to information in the possession of SSA, but also protect the integrity of internal processes. In addition, we recognize the legitimate interests of organizations or persons who have submitted records to SSA or who would otherwise be affected by release of records. For example, we have no discretion to release certain records, such as trade secrets and confidential commercial information, prohibited from release by law. This policy calls for the fullest responsible disclosure consistent with those requirements of administrative necessity and confidentiality which are recognized in the FOIA.
5 USC 553(b)(6)
(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
Sherman v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 244 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2001)
Orly v Obama – Doc 29 – Amended Motion for Reconsideration
Hilarious. Failing to argue fraud with any specificity, accusations that fail to link to the defendants. It’s Orly -par for the course-
05/19/2010 29 REPLY to opposition to motion re 25 Amended MOTION for Reconsideration filed by ORLY TAITZ. (TAITZ, ORLY) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
Orly ‘explains’
Courts allow short reply to opposition. This reply to Obama’s opposition I filed yesterday at 12 at night after a full day of work and after driving for 2 hours and fighting with Dunn and all the lies coming from him, his entourage and nazi establishment in Hermosa Beach.
It certainly shows that this was filed in haste and without much attention to detail, logic and legal foundation.
Orly v Obama – Doc 27 – Memorandum in opposition to amended motion for reconsideration
05/10/2010 27 Memorandum in opposition to re 25 Amended MOTION for Reconsideration, 26[RECAP] MOTION for Reconsideration re 22[RECAP] Order on Motion to Intervene, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Leave to File,, Order on Motion to Consolidate Cases, Order on Motion to Dismiss MOTION for Reconsideration re 22[RECAP] Order on Motion to Intervene, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Leave to File,, Order on Motion to Consolidate Cases, Order on Motion to Dismiss filed by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. (Burch, Alan) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ORLY TAITZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
Defendant.
Orly v Obama – Amended motion
Orly has no idea now does she?
Similarly, Taitz is seeking a leave of court to file a second amended complaint on these causes of action, more fully pleading reliance and damages based on 10th, 9th, 5th and 1st amendment with reference to the pattern of multiple crimes with more than two predicate acts of the enterprise, as well as more fully plead standing on the issues of fraud in relation to her Taxpayer standing and her Whistleblower status.
Her Qui Tam/Whistleblower status was lost when she failed to file the complaint under seal. Gone… Unless she can come up with some new accusations, the Qui Tam case is dead in the water. Does she not know the legal requirements to file a qui tam? Even I do and I have no formal training in issues of law. As to the issues of fraud, standing is not her problem at this moment. What is a problem is her inability to file a fraud claim in sufficiently detailed manner for the court even to consider issues of standing. There is no specificity of fraud, there are no legal citations, there are no arguments other than perhaps some hurt feelings over the Judge referring to her quixotic quest.
Without legal representation Orly will remain fully unable to properly file any RICO claims, Fraud claims, Qui Tam or even Quo Warranto claims. She does not even appear to be aware of the legal precedents in the DC district.
Orly’s Fail in the News
“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”
It’s a bad day for Orly Taitz. First she wins the Obama Conspiracy Theories Pulitzer Putz Award for the most idiotic birther web site and now her latest case has been thrown out of court. Orly Taitz put great emphasis that she was the “last attorney standing.” No more.
The case landed with Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who, suffice it to say, was having none of it.
The Betrayal (so cute, still unaware)
It’s important to note there is no mention, in the denial order, that the issue of Obama’s eligibility is frivolous. On 4/9/10, Orly Taitz filed a motion for judicial notice of Judge Vinson’s ruling, embedded below is the Judicial Notice filed by Orly Taitz.
Orly Taitz motion for Judicial Notice was was granted by Judge Lamberth on 4/14/10(embedded below).
Barack Hussein Obama’s(Barry Soetoro) motion to dismiss the Quo Warranto action was DENIED by Judge Lamberth on 4/14/10(embedded below).
Orly v Obama – Dismissed
Another one bites the dust. As I predicted, Qui Tam rejected due to failure to file under seal, Quo Warranto rejected under Lauer v Andrade. Justice once again prevails
04/14/2010 23[RECAP] MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/14/10. (rje) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
04/14/201022 ORDER, granting 18 Motion to Dismiss the first Amended Complaint. ORDER denying as moot 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ORDER granting 13 motion for leave to file an oppositon to motion to intervene. ORDER denying 6 Motion to Intervene. FURTHER ORDERED denying 17 Motion to Consolidate Cases. This case now Stands DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/14/10. (rje) Modified on 4/16/2010 (rje, ). (Entered: 04/16/2010) 04/14/201023 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/14/10. (rje) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
Orly v Obama – The Judge is starting to respond
This is going to end soon if the Judge finally has decided to take notice.
04/14/2010 MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 10 Motion to Dismiss due to filing of the first amended complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/14/2010. (lcrcl4, ) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
04/14/2010 MINUTE ORDER granting 19 motion to take judicial notice of the order entered in Civil Action No. 3:10-91 (N.D. Fla). Judicial notice is taken. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/14/2010. (lcrcl4, ) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
Orly v Obama – Doc 21 – Orly never disappoints…
Butterfly Bilderberg: Truly astonishing. A legal brief containing not a single case citation. Her amended complaint is predicated on six different federal statutes (RICO, False Claims Act, Quo Warranto, FOIA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985), yet she fails to address the legal or factual requisites of any one of them.
04/12/2010 21 Memorandum in opposition to re 18 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Statement of Kenyan minister of lands regarding Obama’s Kenyan birth)(TAITZ, ORLY) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
Orly v Obama – Doc 20 – Memorandum in Opposition to First Motion to Consolidate
Orly v Obama – Doc 19 – Judicial Notice
4/09/2010 19 First MOTION Judicial Notice by ORLY TAITZ (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order by Judge Vinson 10-cv-91)(TAITZ, ORLY) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
Orly v Obama – Doc 18 – Motion to dismiss
03/31/2010 18 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Cook MD Ga Order July 16 2009, # 2 Exhibit 2 Cook MD Ga Docket, # 3 Exhibit 3 Cook 11th Cir Docket, # 4 Exhibit 4 Rhodes WD Tex Order, # 5 Exhibit 5 Rhodes MD Ga Docket & Orders, # 6 Exhibit 6 Barnett 9th Cir Docket)(Burch, Alan) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
Defendant, Barack H. Obama, respectfully moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims in her First Amended Complaint (R.16), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). Like the claims in her original complaint, her current scattershot allegations center around her core claim that President Obama is ineligible for office. Defendant moved to dismiss her original Complaint, but instead of opposing that motion, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. As explained in the attached memorandum, her amended claims fare no better than those in her original complaint because she still lacks constitutional standing to bring them. Her newly added claims also suffer various additional defects that totally bar their possible success. Defendant respectfully requests dismissal of this case.
Scribd link below the fold
Read More…
Orly v Obama – What can I say…
03/25/2010 17 First MOTION to Consolidate Cases by ORLY TAITZ (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit of Retired Homeland Security officer, # 2 Exhibit Affidavit of investigator licensed by Dep of Homeland Sec, # 3 Exhibit Affidavit of Private inv. licensed by Dep of Homeland Sec, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit for Affidavit of investigator Neil Sankey, # 5 Memorandum in Support Declaration of the Forensic doc examiner) (TAITZ, ORLY) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE
Plaintiff,
Barack Hussein Obama,
Defendent
§ 28 USC § 1407(c)(ii)
Pursuant to 28 USC §1407(c)(ii) Plaintiff Orly Taitz moves for the Multi District Judicial Panel to coordinate and consolidate this action with Florida et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, Case No. 3-10-cv-91 and motions for both actions to be heard jointly by the Honorable Royce Lamberth in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
Orly v Obama – Orly admits…
12.Plaintiff has suffered severe mental anguish and distress and financial damages as a result directly attributable to the Plaintiff’s conduct and actions.
Ain’t that the truth…
Orly v Obama – First Amended Complaint and Kitchen Sink
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ,
PRO SE Plaintiff
v.
Barack Hussein Obama,
John Doe 1-100,
Defendants.
HONORABLE ROYCE LAMBERTH PRESIDING
Civil Action: 10-151 RCL
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT COMMON LAW FRAUD
NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE QUO WARRANTO
QUI TAM
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS UNDER 5 USC 552 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985
VIOLATION OF COMMERCE CLAUSE AND OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS TO GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT AS A DOCTOR OF DENTAL SURGERY UPON DEFENDANT’S IMMINENT SIGHNING OF THE HEALTH BILL 3590 and HR 3962
RICO
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Jurisdiction
The court has jurisdiction under DC statute §§16-3501- 16-3503. Federal court is proper as diversity between the parties exist and the case revolves around the Federal Question of eligibility of the President under Quo Warranto
Orly v Obama – First Amended Complaint and Kitchensink
Butterfly Bilderberg at Politijab has provided us with access to the complaint without having to access Orly’s website. I will discuss her filing in more details in separate postings… There is just too much to discuss…
- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
- COMMON LAW FRAUD
- NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING MOTION FOR TRO/INJUNCTION
- MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE QUO WARRANTO
- QUI TAM
- VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS UNDER 5 USC 552 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
- VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985
- VIOLATION OF COMMERCE CLAUSE AND OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS TO GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT AS A DOCTOR OF DENTAL SURGERY UPON DEFENDANT’S IMMINENT SIGHNING OF THE HEALTH BILL 3590 and HR 3962
Butterfly Bilderberg:
First Amended Complaint and entire contents of the kitchen sink here.
Inasmuch as Local Civil Rule 5.1(c) mandates that “All papers shall be typed (double spaced)” I created a double-spaced version that is easier to read.I cleaned these up the best I could. There is some very funky formatting encoded in the original document and thus the caption and some headings are beyond repair.
Edit: Orly failed to redact a Social Security number in the paragraph numbered 5 above her signature block. I have taken the liberty of doing so, and substituted both documents for the ones I originally posted.
Orly v Obama – Orly cannot login to ECF
Orly has posted an email she sent to Judge Lamberth, informing him that her login to ECF does not allow her to submit any pleading.
Attention Judge Lamberth,
cc ECF registration
cc Clerk Robert Elliott
03.19.10.Your Honor,
ECF login that I was assigned, does not work
When I log in, it doesn’t give me an opportunity to enter any pleadings. I am sending a document to you via e-mail timely, Time stamp is on the e-mail. I am unable to file it via ECF, as the ECF system is locked, it doesn’t open either civil or criminal files, it only opens reports and pacer. I am sending the file as an attachment.Please, see attached First Amended Complaint Taitz v Obama Opposition to Motion to dismiss Taitz v Obama case #10-cv-151
Respectfully submitted
Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
[Updated] Orly v Obama – REPLY to opposition to motion
Orly’s best request for sanctions so far…
03/11/2010 15 REPLY to opposition to motion re 8[RECAP] MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for CM/ECF password filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Exhibit 1 # 2 Exhibit 2,http://www.scribd.com/doc/28280693/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-15-2-REPLY-to-opposition-to-motion-2-Exhibit-2-gov-uscourts-dcd-140567-15-2)(rdj) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
Note how the clerk corrected Orly’s oversight to follow the rules regarding the redaction of social security numbers. Can’t wait for Judge Lamberth to rule on this one…
With the usual misspellings. I love the irony of Orly accusing President Obama of a ”white color crime’
Orly v Obama – Doc 12 – Corrected Memorandum
03/01/2010 12 NOTICE of Filing Corrected Memorandum by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA re 11[RECAP] Memorandum in Opposition, 10 MOTION to Dismiss & supporting memorandum (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Memorandum)(Burch, Alan) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
Defendant, Barack H. Obama, respectfully files the attached corrected memorandum, to replace the one filed, (R.10 & 11), in support of his motion to dismiss this case and in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The only changes in the corrected memorandum are a sentence and citation in the middle of page 15. The original memorandum erroneously stated that Plaintiff asserted in her declaration that the U.S. Attorney’s Office “may bring a criminal prosecution against her[.]” (R.10 & 11 at 15.) In fact, her declaration asserts that this Office may bring a criminal prosecution against President Obama, as reflected in the corrected memorandum. Undersigned counsel regrets the error and any resulting inconvenience
Orly v Obama – Quo Warranto
02/26/2010 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Alan Burch on behalf of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (Burch, Alan) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
02/26/2010 10 MOTION to Dismiss & supporting memorandum by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Cook MD Ga order July 16, 2009, # 2 Exhibit 2 Cook MD Ga docket, # 3 Exhibit 3 Cook 11th Cir docket, # 4 Exhibit 4 Rhodes WD Tex order, # 5 Exhibit 5 Rhodes MD Ga docket & orders, # 6 Exhibit 6 Rhodes 11th Cir docket, # 7 Exhibit 7 Barnet 9th Cir docket)(Burch, Alan) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
02/26/2010 11 Memorandum in opposition to re 8[RECAP] MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for CM/ECF password see R.10 for exhibits filed by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. (Burch, Alan) (Entered: 02/26/2010
Quote:
Plaintiff presents a rambling set of unsubstantiated conspiratorial allegations to support her claim that she has somehow been “injured” through her prior efforts to litigate the President’s eligibility for office including, inter alia, that she suffered “vicious attacks coming from the media,” that an “emissions hose” in her car “was disconnected,” that certain private individuals “submitted [sic] perjured affidavits . . . and forged her signature,” and that “her paypal account was tampered with.” Complaint at 2-3. Of these, the only harm that conceivably stems from official action on the part of any governmental entity is her claim that “[w]hen she brought two legal actions in the Middle District of Georgia . . . she was sanctioned $20,000.” Complaint at 3.
This injury is not traceable to any action of Defendant, but stems instead from her decisions to file, repeatedly, frivolous motions in district court in the Middle District of Georgia, even after being warned by that court.
Orly’s Genius Moves
On Politijab, Terrible Tom explains why Orly’s Quo Warranto filing in the District Court of DC shows a stroke of genius:
The “Quo Warranto” label is merely a feint designed to sandbag the DoJ into thinking they can defend against this brilliant suit by concentrating on the QW deficiencies. Once the DoJ files its answer, it’ll be too late to contest the real causes of action that are carefully (and brilliantly!) embedded in this complaint. The sekrit is all in the formatting.
Please allow me to translate. Reading carefully, it should be obvious that Orly is really suing Obama for…
Count 1: (Equity) Fair Enforcement of the Law of Averages. (200 citizens, 100 suits, 13 attorneys, 12 grand jury presentments. Hey, just to be fair, it’s time to reverse this string of terrible luck and let us win just ONE. Please? If ya don’t, ya know I’m gonna call you a commie traitor, don’t ya?)
Orly v Obama – Docket
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10-cv-00151-RCL
| TAITZ v. OBAMA Assigned to: Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question |
Date Filed: 01/27/2010 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant |
| Plaintiff | ||
| ORLY TAITZ | represented by | ORLY TAITZ 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway Suite 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 (949) 683 – 5411 Fax: (949) 766 – 7603 PRO SE |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA | ||
Orly v Obama – Docket
Note: Why Orly believes attaching your case to one which was already dismissed is beyond me. She also appears to have forgotten to include related cases such as Hollister v Soetoro and Berg v Obama. And did she once again <a href=”http://www.scribd.com/doc/25988800/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-3-AFFIDAVIT-of-Service-of-Summons-and-Complaintby-Gov-uscourts-dcd-140567-3-0″>fail to properly serve the President</a>?
01/27/2010 5 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. Date of Service Upon Attorney General 1/27/10. (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
01/27/2010 4 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the US Attorney. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA served on 1/27/2010, answer due 3/29/2010 (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
01/27/2010 3 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaintby ORLY TAITZ. (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
01/27/2010 2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by ORLY TAITZ. Case related to Case No. 09mc346. (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
01/27/2010 SUMMONS (3) Issued as to BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
01/27/2010 1 COMPLAINT against BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616027174) filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
Still nothing filed in the DC Circuit
01/28/2010 Showing up on Pacer as 1:09-mc-00346-RCL.
Just as in the James v Obama case and the Easterling case, there is no evidence so far that the Quo Warranto was filed with the Courts.
Note: Orly’s site is once again identified as serving malicious software by Google. Be careful…
Pacer search:
| 0 Total Party matches for selection TAITZ for DIST. OF COLUMBIA Search Complete |
| Wed Jan 27 11:14:05 2010 |
| No Matches Found |
Recent Comments