TX – Taitz v Sebelius

The Court dismisses the lawsuit quickly and decisively… Poor Orly will surely blame the Judge…

Upshot: “As other courts have held in similar suits brought by Plaintiff, “this Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with [Taitz].” Sibley v. Obama, –F.Supp.2d–, 2012 WL 2016809 at *1 (D. D.C. June 6, 2012.) (quoting Taitz v. Obama, 707 F.Supp.2d 1, 3 (D. D.C. 2010)).”

and

2 The complaint also appears to bring causes of action (1) challenging President Obama’s eligibility to serve as president and sign legislation and (2) contending an unlawful conspiracy in violation of Rico .. Because Taitz has failed to identify any particularized harm which she has experienced, or will imminently experience, these claims are also dismissed.

 

NDTX – 2012-11-20 – TvSebelius - ORDER Granting Motion to Dismiss 

TX – Taitz v Sebelius – Notice of Meet and Confer

Not getting much traction. Just because Orly made assertions of criminal violations, does not make it so.

NOTICE OF MEET AND CONFER

This is to advise the court that on 10.12. 2012 Plaintiff conducted a Meet and Confer with Mr. Scott Risner, Trial attorney for the Department of Justice and counsel for the defense.

Mr. Risner opposes Motion to Consolidate, #18 on the docket.

Additionally Plaintiff advised Mr. Risner that in her pleadings in this case she provided sworn affidavits that evidence a number of felonies being committed and she wanted to know if in accordance with 18USC§4 Misprision of Felony, Mr. Risner forwarded this information to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice or whether he will forward this to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. Mr. Risner stated that he did not forward this information to the Criminal division of the Department of Justice, but will consider doing this. Plaintiff inquired, when will he be doing this, Mr. Risner stated that at the moment he is concentrating on drafting a reply to her latest pleadings.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

TX – Taitz v Sebelius – Reply

Orly has filed yet another ‘masterpiece’ outlining how she fails to correctly argue standing.

Upon receiving this ruling, Taitz filed another motion for reconsideration, asking to rule in her favor based on the Establishment clause, however the court ruled that since she did not bring the Establishment clause in the original complaint, it would not consider it under rule 60B.

“plaintiff cannot use her Rule 60(b) motion to raise legal arguments that were available to her at the time of filing. Therefore, the Court will not address plaintiff’s new claims.” id

And of course, her ‘arguments’ fail on so many levels:

Ms. Taitz claims that because President Obama has not proved that he is a natural born citizen, he thus cannot legitimately sign the bill into law.

Another lawsuit that is going to quickly fail…

10/05/2012 16 REPLY filed by Orly Taitz re: 14 Response/Objection, (Attachments: # 1 Declaration(s) certificate of service) (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

Continue reading

TX – Taitz v Sibelius

If anyone were still in doubt about Orly’s legal skills, the following responses filed by Michael Astrue et al should lay to rest any such concerns

Failure to follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure for service:

Footnote 1:Taitz served the United States Attorney’s Office by certified mail on September 4, 2012. She does not appear to have served the Attorney General or any of the federal government agencies or official-capacity defendants, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i).

Even if Jurisdiction Exists and Venue is Proper, Taitz Has Not Shown a Likelihood

of Success on the Merits, as She Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be

Granted

If the Court looks to the merits, it should be clear that Taitz cannot succeed on any of her claims. Taitz challenges a law that she either misunderstands or misrepresents, and even a cursory reading of the relevant provision – together with decades of case law interpreting it, none of it cited by Taitz – demonstrates that her claims are without merit.
And much more..

Taitz’s motion for a preliminary injunction also contends that the religious conscience exemption violates her rights under RFRA and her First Amendment right to free speech. Neither of these claims was raised in her complaint, and thus neither provides a basis for her to obtain preliminary relief. Because the very purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the parties’ positions until a final resolution of the merits, it would be illogical to enter a preliminary injunction with respect to a claim that the plaintiff’s complaint does not even seek to present.

09/20/2012 14 RESPONSE filed by Michael Astrue, William A Chatfield, Eric Holder, Barrack Hussein Obama, Kathleen Sebelius re: 7 MOTION to Stay of Health Care tax/penalty/fine MOTION for Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Proposed Order) (Risner, Scott) (Entered: 09/20/2012)

09/20/2012 15 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Michael Astrue, William A Chatfield, Eric Holder, Barrack Hussein Obama, Kathleen Sebelius with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Proposed Order) (Risner, Scott) (Entered: 09/20/2012)