TX – Taitz v Johnson – Hearing

Orly Taitz is attempting another court case (docket), this time related to President Obama’s “immigration” policies. While she is likely going to fail due to lack of standing, the Fogbow will have “boots on the ground” to report on Orly’s next entertaining visit to a court. The Judge, Andrew S. Hanen, however, does appear to be friendly to Orly’s mistaken beliefs and provided some dicta in U.S. v. Nava-Martinez in which he strongly objected to the practices of the DHS. However, his disagreements with US policy, are of no relevance to the fact that Orly lacks any standing.

08/27/2014 01:30 1:14-cv-00119 23 Taitz v. Johnson et al Miscellaneous Hearing

She has subpoenaed several border patrol agents who she believes to be willing to ‘testify’. Oh boy, such entertainment. Expect filings of treason to follow quickly thereafter ;-)

Orly’s FOIA requests, having failed, are also on appeal, however she stands little chance of winning those as the SSA has provided her with the information she requested, even though she still believes that they are hiding some…

She can just not accept that there is no evidence of a Harry Bounel ever receiving social security or that his social security number matches the one assigned to President Obama.

TX – Taitz v Johnson – Reply

Orly has filed another meaningless filing, this time in Texas, where she is seeking emergency relief from the Government from what she believes to be illegal activities.

Let’s ignore that Orly has no standing, that the Government is well within its rights to control immigration policies and the fact that Orly has failed to properly file a complaint, which serves to initiate the case and nothing much is left that suggests that this case will survive the Judge’s ruling.

Enjoy another “master piece” by our favorite Dentist/Lawyer…

CA – Dummett v Bowen – Appeals Court Confirms

Bowen to recover cost… Non-published opinion here

Disposition
Dummett et al. v. Bowen
Case Number C073763
Description: Affirmed in full
Date: 07/21/2014
Status: Final
The judgment is affirmed. Bowen shall recover her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
Publication Status: Signed Unpublished
Author:     Robie, Ronald B.
Participants: Duarte, Elena J. (Concur)
Blease, Coleman A. (Concur)
Case Citation: none 

NY – Laity v State – SCOTUS – rehearing denied

No. 13-875
Title: Robert C. Laity, Petitioner v. New York
Docketed: January 23, 2014
Lower Ct: Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Third Judicial Department
Case Nos.: (516176)
Decision Date: April 11, 2013
Discretionary Court
Decision Date: November 19, 2013

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan 20 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 24, 2014)
Mar 12 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 28, 2014.
Mar 31 2014 Petition DENIED.
Apr 11 2014 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Apr 16 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 2, 2014.
May 5 2014 Rehearing DENIED.

MS- Orly v Democrat Party – Response to Motion ….

Orly filed some meaningless documents and the defense is quick to point this out. He worst failure is to quote from the dissenting opinion rather than the ruling. That’s a major no-no in law. Poor Orly realizes that she is losing the case and hopes, by filing nonsense, she can delay the inevitable

Document Number: 110

Docket Text:
RESPONSE to Motion re [109] MOTION for Leave to File filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Begley, Samuel)

Plaintiff first requests that the Court take into consideration the dissents (but not the ruling or concurrences) from a recently decided Supreme Court of Alabama case [ECF 105-3]. This case interpreted an Alabama statute (§ 17-14-31(a), Ala. Code 1975) that concerns the Alabama Secretary of State’s obligation to place nominees on the ballot. The dissents that Taitz requests the Court consider are irrelevant to the disposition of any pending motion in this case.