DC – Taitz v Donahue – Defendant/plaintiff who knows..

Orly ‘argues’

Conclusion

Evidence shows that the defense did not provide Plaintiff with all the information requested in FOIA request and Plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment on following issues:

1. Defense should be ordered to release to the plaintiff a response and any and all correspondence provided by the Fraud Department of the USPS to the Inspector General of the USPS, and specifically, but not limited to a response to which FOIA officer Gladis C Griffith avers to in her August 2, 2013 letter (Appeal 2013-IGAP-00026, FOIA case No 2013-IGFP-00406)

2. Defense is entitled to a sworn affidavit signed by the individual, who signed August 2, 2013 letter (Appeal 2013-IGAP-00026, FOIA case No 2013-IGFP-00406) “for” Gladis Griffith.

Why would the ‘defense’ aka defendant be entitled to a sworn affidavit. Does Orly not remember that she is the plaintiff? So sloppy… Orly never disappoints. What a waste of the Court’s time this whole action has been.

DC – Taitz v Donahue – FOIA Summary Judgment

Raicha, at the Fogbow, exposes the latest problems with Orly’s filings

Once again demonstrating complete incompetence:

Orly Taitz filed a motion for summary judgment in this case. To win a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must show that there are no triable issues of fact. Therefore, there should be no trial and the case should be decided in their favor based on the law applied to undisputed facts.

The defendants opposed the motion for summary judgment.

Orly Taitz filed this reply. And claimed that there are three issues of triable fact.

What a total maroon.

In other words, Orly has argued that there are triable issues of fact, even though she is asking for summary judgment, totally undermining her own positions. Wonderful…

Butterfly Bilderberg provides us with a nice overview of what a motion for summary judgment should look like:

  • Summary Judgment Standard. “[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the . . . court of the basis for its motion, and . . . [must] demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
  • Admissible Evidence Required. Any materials supporting the motion for summary judgment that would not be admissible in evidence at trial over a proper objection, assuming the presence in the courtroom of all testifying witnesses, will be disregarded, unless the Court in its discretion either (a) gives a party an additional opportunity to support an assertion of fact or an objection to an assertion of fact, or (b) considers a fact as undisputed for purposes of the motion where the other party failed to object that the material cited does not properly support the fact.
  • Authentication of Documents. Each document offered in support of the motion for summary judgment generally must be authenticated, unless the party opposing the motion proffers the same document in support of that party’s response, or the Court in its discretion decides to consider the document where the other party failed to object on grounds of failure to authenticate the document. The movant must lay a foundation in an affidavit to establish that the affiant has the requisite personal knowledge and competence to authenticate the documents attached to the affidavit.
  • Argument is Not Evidence. Neither argument in a legal memorandum or brief, nor argument in oral argument, is evidence.
  • All Material Facts Must be Supported by Admissible Evidence. The Court may find that the movant has not established there is no genuine issue as to a fact if the fact is not supported by admissible evidence. If that fact is sufficiently material it could result in denial of summary judgment. Before filing a motion for summary judgment, review the supporting materials against the statement of undisputed facts to make sure each and every fact identified as an undisputed fact is supported by admissible evidence.

DC – Taitz v Donahue – Reply

2014-01-24 19 0 REPLY to opposition to motion re 16 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by PATRICK DONAHUE, DAVID C. WILLIAMS. (Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
Orly failed to raise the proper issues
In their opening brief, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the adequacy of their search for responsive documents as well as on the three withholdings taken pursuant to Exemption 7(C). See Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 16, at 5-8 (“USPS MSJ”).
Plaintiff’s opposition brief does not contest any aspect of the search, taking issue only with aspects of the response to Plaintiff’s appeal. See Plaintiff’s Opposition (“Pl. Opp.”), ECF No. 18 at ¶ 14 et seq. Nor does Plaintiff contest any withholding pursuant to Exemption 7(C) or any legal argument made in support of the withholdings. See generally Pl. Opp. Plaintiff has thus conceded any arguments as to the adequacy of Defendants’ search and to the redactions taken in the documents released.
But did manage to raise irrelevant issues
The arguments Plaintiff has made, by contrast, describe ancillary matters, none of which have any bearing on the parties’ arguments concerning summary judgment, and which rehash other matters already decided by, or presently before, the Court.
For example, Plaintiff’s contention that she is entitled to summary judgment based on the Defendants’ alleged lack of timely response, see Pl. Opp. at ¶¶ 2-3, has already been adjudicated by the Court. See ECF No. 14.
For this reason, Plaintiff’s argument would be relevant to a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), but not in response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment or in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s arguments concerning alleged misconduct by Defendants and the Court pertaining to this issue, see Pl. Opp at ¶¶ 4-7, are likewise inapposite to summary judgment, and moreover, merely rehash similar tendentious allegations raised in Plaintiff’s motion to recuse. Compare ECF No. 17.

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.

DC – Taitz v Donahue – Order granting briefing schedule

Judge Lamberth again… How dare he granting all these motions…
11/27/2013 15 ORDER granting 13 Motion for Briefing Schedule. Upon consideration of defendant’s Motion 13 to Set Briefing Schedule, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s motion is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that briefing in this matter shall proceed as follows: Defendants shall move for summary judgment no later than December 13, 2013; plaintiff shall file any response thereto no later than January 3, 2014; and defendants shall file a reply, if any, no later than January 24, 2014. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on November 27, 2013. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 11/27/2013)

DC – Taizt v Donahue – Orly Orly Orly…

Poor Orly is not doing to well. She was asked to provide feedback on a proposed schedule and instead decided to threaten opposing counsel, in violation of the the California Rules of Professional Conduct:

Rule 5-100 Threatening Criminal, Administrative, or Disciplinary Charges

(A) A member shall not threaten to present criminal, administrative, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute.

(B) As used in paragraph (A) of this rule, the term “administrative charges” means the filing or lodging of a complaint with a federal, state, or local governmental entity which may order or recommend the loss or suspension of a license, or may impose or recommend the imposition of a fine, pecuniary sanction, or other sanction of a quasi-criminal nature but does not include filing charges with an administrative entity required by law as a condition precedent to maintaining a civil action.

(C) As used in paragraph (A) of this rule, the term “civil dispute” means a controversy or potential controversy over the rights and duties of two or more parties under civil law, whether or not an action has been commenced, and includes an administrative proceeding of a quasi-civil nature pending before a federal, state, or local governmental entity.

Instead, Orly insists that if the opposing counsel does not forward her ‘materials’ to a Federal Grand Jury, they will expose themselves to RICO charges… Has she abandoned all pretense to be acting as a lawyer? Or is she just a pro-se and the court will take pity on her?

Mr. Soskin,

I filed a motion seeking summary judgment/default judgment in my favor. You asked for a leave of court to file a late response. Leave of court was not given to you. You have no right to file anything until Judge Lamberth rules.

Perhaps Orly forgot about the response filed by the Government? That they were not properly served…?

For service to be effective, however, the service package must be received by a civil process clerk at the United States Attorney’s Office . . . .

and

Plaintiff’s argument misses the point. At most, the stamped signature of Mr. Hase could confirm that the service package was received at the Department of Justice mailroom, which Defendants have not disputed. For service to be effective, however, the service package must be received by a civil process clerk at the United States Attorney’s Office, and no one named “Eddy Hase,” or having a similar name, has held such a position at any time relevant to this case.

Source

Orly continues:

For you to even discuss any new filing is a real hutzpah, Mr. Soskin, and I assume you know the meaning of the word hutzpah.
I, do, request though that you and Mr. Van Horn forward immediately to the Federal Grand Jury under 18 USC 3332 all of the evidence in this case, which shows that Mr. Obama is committing fraud, using a fabricated ID, that Postmaster General and Inspector General of the USPS and/or other employees of the USPS are criminally complicit in the RICO to steal U.S. Presidency using fabricated IDs, identity fraud, identity theft, fraud and a whole laundry list of other charges.
Please, forward to me a confirmation that you and Mr. Van Horn forwarded this information to the Federal Grand Jury.
If you refuse to do so, you personally and Mr. Horn will be complicit in this RICO.
I would like to remind you one historical fact: during Watergate 30 high ranking officials of Nixon administration, including Attorney General John Mitchell, went to prison for fraud and obstruction of Justice.
If you do not provide me such a confirmation within 24 hours, I am filing a notice with Judge Lamberth.
Have a nice day,
Sincerly,
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

We can only hope that she files a notice with the Judge..

DC – Taitz v Donahue – Orly letter and Why she will fail again

Sterngard Friegen at the Fogbow explains:

There is no potential for discovery in a FOIA case as a general matter. And what Taitz is doing isn’t cognizable under the FOIA statute, even if she exhausts her administrative remedies. Which she is incapable of doing.

In other words, even in the unlikely case where Orly has exhausted her administrative remedies, she still cannot get discovery by filing a lawsuit in Federal Court.

Continue reading

DC – Taitz v Donahue (FOIA) – FOIA response received

Orly could not wait for the statutory 20 days to respond to a FOIA request and jumped the gun. The inspector General of the USPS  responded that the initial complaint had been forwarded to the USPIS Mail Fraud Division for action and results to be reported within 30 days.

She of course failed to read (surprise) the letter

ll you are not satisfied with my action, you may administratively appeal it by writing to the attention of Gladis Griffth, Deputy General Counsel, Office of Inspector General, 1735 North Lynn Street, Arlington, VA 22209-2020, within 30 days of the date of this letter.

The hotline asked for a response within 30 days after 06/29/2012 and noticed it referred a related case on 03/05/2012 to the Mail Fraud division (120306HER047). That appears to have been the end of it.

She will find out that nothing was done with her meaningless complaint and that she will have no reason to file a legal case. Let’s hope she already paid for the filing fees :-)

Orly is still hopeful

Cases are starting to unravel. Employees at the bottom of the chain of command do not want to go to prison or to the gallows for complicity to commit treason, usurpation of the U.S. Presidency, identity theft, forgery,  USPS fraud, elections fraud.

ROTFL.. So clueless… These employees are doing what FOIA requires them to do: Provide a response that indicates they fully ignored Orly’s silly charges. What other choice did they have?… There was no evidence of fraud.

Her followers, again, are exited but will be upset when they learn about the details. Par for the course… FOIA actions are not very useful as one can only file a legal case if the FOIA request has been denied. There is no standing for Orly to sue the postal service for having ignored her foolish complaints.

CA – Taitz v. Donahue – FOIA lawsuit

Orly has once again done it: She now has filed a FOIA lawsuit against the United Postal Service. Why? Because she filed a FOIA request early June and believes that they have failed to respond within the statutory 20 working days. Note that the 20 days start from the time the document is delivered at the appropriate FOIA site.

Orly also filed hundreds of pages of irrelevant information, which may have further complicated matters.

Continue reading

DC – Hassan v FEC – DC USDC – Docket

U.S. District Court

District of Columbia (Washington, DC)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11-cv-02189-EGS

HASSAN v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Assigned to: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

Case in other court:  12-05335

Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

Date Filed: 12/08/2011

Date Terminated: 09/28/2012

Jury Demand: None

Nature of Suit: 441 Voting

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
Mr. ABDUL KARIM HASSAN represented by ABDUL KARIM HASSAN

215-28 Hillside Avenue

Queens Village, NY 11427

(718) 740-1000

Fax: (718) 468-3894

Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com

PRO SE

V.

Defendant
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION represented by Gregory John Mueller 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1650

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: gmueller@fec.gov

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony Herman 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1650

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: aherman@fec.gov

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Brett Kolker 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1629

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: dkolker@fec.gov

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Continue reading

DC – Hassan v FEC – DC USDC – Docket

U.S. District Court

District of Columbia (Washington, DC)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11-cv-02189-EGS

HASSAN v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Assigned to: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

Case in other court:  12-05335

Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

Date Filed: 12/08/2011

Date Terminated: 09/28/2012

Jury Demand: None

Nature of Suit: 441 Voting

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
Mr. ABDUL KARIM HASSAN represented by ABDUL KARIM HASSAN

215-28 Hillside Avenue

Queens Village, NY 11427

(718) 740-1000

Fax: (718) 468-3894

Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com

PRO SE

V.

Defendant
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION represented by Gregory John Mueller 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1650

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: gmueller@fec.gov

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony Herman 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1650

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: aherman@fec.gov

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Brett Kolker 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1629

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: dkolker@fec.gov

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Continue reading

DC – Hassan v FEC – Ruling

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABDUL KARIM HASSAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant.

 Civil Action No. 11-2189 (EGS)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Abdul Karim Hassan brings this action against the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), seeking a declaratory

judgment that (1) the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013, which provides public funding to Presidential nominees of major or minor political parties, is unconstitutional and invalid, and (2) the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution [1]is irreconcilable with, and has been “trumped, abrogated and implicitly repealed” by, the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 31-32. Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), or in the alternative, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for a Three-Judge Court. Upon consideration of the motions, the responses and replies thereto, the applicable law, the entire record in this case, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and will DENY Plaintiff’s Application for a Three Judge Court.

Continue reading

DC – Hassan v FEC – DC USDC – Docket

U.S. District Court

District of Columbia (Washington, DC)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11-cv-02189-EGS

HASSAN v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Assigned to: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

Case in other court:  12-05335

Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

Date Filed: 12/08/2011

Date Terminated: 09/28/2012

Jury Demand: None

Nature of Suit: 441 Voting

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
Mr. ABDUL KARIM HASSAN represented by ABDUL KARIM HASSAN

215-28 Hillside Avenue

Queens Village, NY 11427

(718) 740-1000

Fax: (718) 468-3894

Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com

PRO SE

V.

Defendant
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION represented by Gregory John Mueller 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1650

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: gmueller@fec.gov

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony Herman 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1650

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: aherman@fec.gov

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Brett Kolker 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1629

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: dkolker@fec.gov

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Continue reading

DC – Hassan v FEC – USCOA – Docket

Court of Appeals Docket #: 12-5335 Docketed: 10/26/2012

Termed: 03/11/2013

Nature of Suit: 2441 Civil Rights Voting
Abdul Hassan v. FEC
Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Fee Status: Fee Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) Civil US
     2) United States
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0090-1 : 1:11-cv-02189-EGS Lead: 1:11-cv-02189-EGS
     Trial Judge: Emmet G. Sullivan, U.S. District Judge
     Date Filed: 12/08/2011
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date NOA Filed:
     09/28/2012      10/24/2012
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
     None
Panel Assignment:      Not available

Continue reading

DC – Hassan v FEC – DC USDC – Docket

U.S. District Court

District of Columbia (Washington, DC)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11-cv-02189-EGS

HASSAN v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Assigned to: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

Case in other court:  12-05335

Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

Date Filed: 12/08/2011

Date Terminated: 09/28/2012

Jury Demand: None

Nature of Suit: 441 Voting

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
Mr. ABDUL KARIM HASSAN represented by ABDUL KARIM HASSAN

215-28 Hillside Avenue

Queens Village, NY 11427

(718) 740-1000

Fax: (718) 468-3894

Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com

PRO SE

V.

Defendant
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION represented by Gregory John Mueller 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1650

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: gmueller@fec.gov

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony Herman 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1650

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: aherman@fec.gov

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Brett Kolker 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1629

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: dkolker@fec.gov

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Continue reading

DC – Hassan v FEC – DC USDC – Docket

U.S. District Court

District of Columbia (Washington, DC)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11-cv-02189-EGS

HASSAN v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Assigned to: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

Case in other court:  12-05335

Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

Date Filed: 12/08/2011

Date Terminated: 09/28/2012

Jury Demand: None

Nature of Suit: 441 Voting

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
Mr. ABDUL KARIM HASSAN represented by ABDUL KARIM HASSAN

215-28 Hillside Avenue

Queens Village, NY 11427

(718) 740-1000

Fax: (718) 468-3894

Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com

PRO SE

V.

Defendant
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION represented by Gregory John Mueller 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1650

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: gmueller@fec.gov

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony Herman 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1650

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: aherman@fec.gov

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Brett Kolker 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1629

Fax: (202) 219-0260

Email: dkolker@fec.gov

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Continue reading

DC – SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (D.C. Sup Ct.) – Complaint

Sibley has posted his complaint here.  Sibley is trying to get the court to prevent the electors from voting for President Obama. The next hearing date will be on Feb 15, too late… Sibley raises the Vattel issue, tries to prevent the Electors from voting etc etc. Nothing that will result in anything relevant I predict. Even if Sibley were to have standing, the Court has no choice but to accept the findings in US v Wong Kim Ark.

Case. No.: 2012-CA-008644 B

Judge: John M. Mott

Next Hearing: Feb. 15, 2013, 10:00 a.m.

COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY,

4000MASSACHUSETTS AVE,NW, #1518

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20016,

TELEPHONE: (202-478-0371),

PLAINTIFF,

VS.

YVETTE ALEXANDER

1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE,NWSUITE 400

WASHINGTON, DC 20004

TELEPHONE: (202) 724-8068,

AND

DON R. DINAN

600 14TH STREET NW, SUITE 400

WASHINGTON D.C. 20005

TELEPHONE: (202) 216-8302,

AND

WILLIAM LIGHTFOOT

2001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE,NWSUITE 450

WASHINGTON D.C. 20006

TELEPHONE: (202) 659-5500,

DEFENDANTS.