MD – Taitz v Colvin (formerly Astrue) – A total failure…

The case is fascinating in how Orly manages to misinterpret or misunderstand most anything. Recently she attempted to file newly uncovered evidence as a motion for reconsideration under FRCP 60(b) but she filed under FRCP 60(b)(6) because the 1 year time period for filing such a motion under rule 60B2 had expired. Of course, the existence of a ‘catch all’ rule does not undo FRCP 60(b)(2), something the defendants pointed out carefully. If I have some time, I will see if I can document some of the hilarious failures and misunderstandings…

Thus the defendants showed how Orly’s FRCP 60(b)(6) request for relief was flawed

Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) makes relief available from a “final judgment, order or proceeding” only for “any other reason that justifies relief.” By its plain text, then, the Rule is a catch-all provision that excludes any of the reasons explicitly listed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Salazar v. District of Columbia, 633 F.3d 1110, 1116 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Rule 60(b)’s “provisions are ‘mutually exclusive’ to the extent that subsection (6) cannot be used to avoid the one-year limitation in subsections (1)—(5)”) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993)).

Orly, inexplicably, responds referring to   ACKERMANN v. UNITED STATES  340 U.S. 193 (71 S.Ct. 209, 95 L.Ed. 207) which ruled against the applicability of Rule 60(b)(6)… She could have cited Klapprott v United States, 335 U.S. 601 (1949). But Orly clearly filed here FRCP 60(b) motion to include ‘new evidence’ and thus Rule 60(b)(2) applies.

Some other relevant rulings:

Dowell v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F. 2d 46 – Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1993

Although Rule 60(b)(6) is a catchall provision which allows a court to grant relief for any reason, case law limits the reasons for which a court may grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6). First, as under Rule 60(b)(5), such a change in decisional law subsequent to a final judgment provides no basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Hall, 364 F.2d at 496. Second, a court may grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6) if “such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.” Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 615, 69 S.Ct. 384, 390, 93 L.Ed. 266 (1949). Although the Supreme Court in Klapprott granted petitioner relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the Court’s subsequent decision in Ackermann v. United States, supra, limited the broad language of Klapprott to situations involving extraordinary circumstances. See Ackermann, 340 U.S. at 202, 71 S.Ct. at 213. In reaching its decision in Ackermann, the Court stated that “[b]y no stretch of imagination can the voluntary, deliberate, free, untrammeled choice of petitioner not to appeal compare with the Klapprott situation.” 340 U.S. at 200, 71 S.Ct. at 212. As did Ackermann, Dowell made a “voluntary, deliberate, free, [and] untrammeled choice,” 340 U.S. at 200, 71 S.Ct. at 212, not to appeal the decision of the district court granting State Farm’s motion for summary judgment

Most hilarious is Orly forgetting the nature of the original case: A FOIA request…

Case details

Court: dcd
Docket #: 1:11-cv-00402
Case Name: TAITZ v. ASTRUE
PACER case #: 146770
Date filed: 2011-02-16
Date terminated: 2011-08-30
Date of last filing: 2013-06-14
Assigned to: Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth
Case Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act
Jury Demand: None
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Parties

Represented Party Attorney & Contact Info
ORLY TAITZ
Plaintiff
Dr.
ORLY TAITZ
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway Suite 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 (949) 683 – 5411 Fax: (949) 766 – 7603 Email: orly.taitz@gmail.com PRO SE
MICHAEL ASTRUE
Defendant
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Patrick George Nemeroff
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 5381 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-8727 Email: patrick.g.nemeroff@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Interested Party
Patrick George Nemeroff
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DOES
Defendant
1 – 100 TERMINATED: 04/08/2011
Patrick George Nemeroff
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PAUL MAAS RISENHOOVER
Movant
Dr.
PAUL MAAS RISENHOOVER
Island of Taiwan in the Allied American Formosa Trust Territory, West Pacific 27-1 Yu Nung Rd 5th floor 1-2, 5A3 East Dist Taiwan City 70164 289-7481 PRO SE
MICHAEL JAMES ASTRUE
Defendant
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Patrick George Nemeroff
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 5381 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-8727 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: patrick.g.nemeroff@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Documents

Date Filed Document # Long Description
2011-02-16 1 COMPLAINT against MICHAEL ASTRUE ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616036614) filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
  1  
  1  
2011-02-16 2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by ORLY TAITZ. Case related to Case No. 10-cv-151. (jf, ) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
2011-04-08 3 AMENDED COMPLAINT against MICHAEL ASTRUE filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)”Let this be filed” by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth.(rdj) Note: Portions of these exhibits are illegible in paper form and on ECF. (Entered: 04/11/2011)
  3  
2011-04-08 4 AFFIDAVIT of Mailing by ORLY TAITZ. “Let this be filed, The Court notes mailing was sent to improper address for the U.S. Attorney, and time to respond doesn’t run until U.S. Attorney is properly served.” by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth.(rdj) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
2011-04-08 5 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 3/30/2011. (rdj) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
2011-04-21 6 AFFIDAVIT of Mailing to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia with Summons and First Amended Complaint by ORLY TAITZ. (rdj) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
2011-05-17 7 AFFIDAVIT FOR DEFAULT by ORLY TAITZ. “Let this be filed. Request DENIED. No proof of service has been filed ; only proof of mailing.” by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth(rdj) (Entered: 05/19/2011)
2011-05-20 8 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. MICHAEL ASTRUE served on 3/28/2011, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 4/3/2011. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 5/3/2011.) (rdj) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
2011-05-23 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick George Nemeroff on behalf of MICHAEL ASTRUE (Nemeroff, Patrick) Modified on 5/24/2011 to correct filer(rdj). (Entered: 05/23/2011)
2011-05-23 10 ANSWER to 3 Amended Complaint by MICHAEL ASTRUE. Related document: 3 Amended Complaint filed by ORLY TAITZ.(Nemeroff, Patrick) Modified on 5/24/2011 to correct filer (rdj). (Entered: 05/23/2011)
2011-05-23 11 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, 3 Amended Complaint and Attached Exhibits by MICHAEL ASTRUE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nemeroff, Patrick) Modified on 5/24/2011 to correct filer (rdj). (Entered: 05/23/2011)
  11  
2011-05-31 12 MOTION to Compel Preparation of a Vaughn Index by ORLY TAITZ (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(rdj) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
  12  
2011-06-02 13 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 6/2/11. (rje, ) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
2011-06-02 14 SCHEDULING ORDER: Any Dispositive Motions by defendant shall be due within thirty (30) days. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 6/2/11. (rje, ) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
2011-06-08 15 MOTION to Intervene, MOTION for Hearing on contempt of the Court’s order of June 2 by PAUL MAAS RISENHOOVER “Let this be filed. Motion and all reliefs DENIED.” Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth(rdj) (Entered: 06/09/2011)
2011-06-14 16 Redacted COMPLAINT against MICHAEL ASTRUE ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616036614) filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Per 06/02/2011 Order 13 )(rdj) Note: Portions of these exhibits are illegible in paper form and on ECF. (Entered: 06/15/2011)
2011-06-14 17 Redacted AMENDED COMPLAINT against MICHAEL ASTRUE filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Per 06/02/2011 Order 13 )(rdj) Note: Portions of these exhibits are illegible in paper form and on ECF. (Entered: 06/15/2011)
2011-06-20 18 MOTION to Strike 10 Answer to Amended Complaint by ORLY TAITZ (rdj) Note: Portions of these exhibits are illegible in paper form and on ECF. (Entered: 06/21/2011)
2011-06-22 19 MOTION for Clarification by ORLY TAITZ Note: Portions of these exhibits are illegible in paper form and on ECF.(rdj) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
2011-06-22 20 MOTION for Default Judgment by ORLY TAITZ Note: Portions of these exhibits are illegible in paper form and on ECF.(rdj) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
2011-07-01 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment by MICHAEL ASTRUE (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E)(Nemeroff, Patrick) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
  21  
  21  
  21  
  21  
  21  
  21  
  21  
  21  
2011-07-08 22 MOTION to Compel by ORLY TAITZ Note: Portions of these exhibits are illegible in paper form and on ECF.(rdj) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
2011-07-15 23 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER FILED 7/21/2011….. Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jf, ) (various pages are illegible) Modified on 7/21/2011 to seal, contains Personal information(rdj). Modified on 7/21/2011 (rje, ). (Entered: 07/18/2011)
  23  
2011-07-20 24 MOTION to Strike 23 Memorandum in Opposition by MICHAEL ASTRUE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nemeroff, Patrick) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
  24  
2011-07-21 25 ORDER granting 24 Motion to Strike 23 Memorandum in Opposition. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 7/20/11. (rje) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
2011-07-21 26 ORDER that plaintiff shall file the redacted version of her Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment within fourteen days of this date. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on July 21, 2011. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
2011-07-22 27 MOTION for Reconsideration re 25 Order on Motion to Strike by ORLY TAITZ (rdj) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
2011-07-25 28 Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ORLY TAITZ. Note: Portions of these exhibits are illegible in paper form and on ECF. (rdj) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
2011-07-25 29 ORDER to seal Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 7/25/11. (rje) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
2011-07-25 30 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 27 Motion for Reconsideration and Striking 28 Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 7/25/11. (rje) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
2011-07-27 31 Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ORLY TAITZ. “Let this be filed, except for Exhibit 9, which shall be filed under seal only since it still contains improper redactions.” by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 9 *Sealed pursuant to Chief Judge Lamberth*)(various pages are illegible in paper form and on ECF)(zrdj) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
  31  
2011-08-03 32 REPLY to opposition to motion re 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by MICHAEL ASTRUE. (Nemeroff, Patrick) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
2011-08-30 33 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
2011-08-30 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)
2011-08-30 35 ORDER denying 12 Motion to Compel; denying 18 Motion to Strike; denying 19 Motion for Clarification; denying 20 Motion for Default Judgment; and denying 22 Motion to Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
2011-09-09 36 MOTION for Reconsideration re 35 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Default Judgment, 34 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by ORLY TAITZ (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Unredacted))(various pages are illegible in paper form and on ECF) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
  36  
2011-09-23 37 Memorandum in opposition to re 36 MOTION for Reconsideration re 35 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Default Judgment,,,,,, 34 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment MOTION for Reconsideration re 35 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Default Judgment,,,,,, 34 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by MICHAEL ASTRUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nemeroff, Patrick) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
  37  
2011-09-30 38 REPLY to opposition to motion re 36 MOTION for Reconsideration re 35 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Default Judgment, 34 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment MOTION for Reconsideration re 35 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Default Judgment, 34 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by ORLY TAITZ. (rdj) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
2011-10-17 39 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 36 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on October 17, 2011. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
2011-10-25 40 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 34 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by ORLY TAITZ. Filing fee $ 0.00. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (rdj) (Entered: 10/26/2011)
2011-10-26 41 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Fee remains to be paid and another notice will be transmitted when the fee has been paid in the District Court re 40 Notice of Appeal. (rdj) (Entered: 10/26/2011)
2011-12-02 42 Supplemental Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re 40 Notice of Appeal ; (rdj) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
2012-08-30 43 MANDATE of USCA (certified copy) as to 40 Notice of Appeal filed by ORLY TAITZ ; ORDERED that the motion for default judgement be denied; FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied and the motion for summary affirmance be granted. USCA Case Number 11-5304. (md, ) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
2013-06-07 44 ORDER denying leave to file. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 06/07/2013. (lcrcl3) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
2013-06-13 45 Emergency MOTION for Reconsideration by ORLY TAITZ (Attachments: # 1 Letter to the Court)”Let this be filed along with the attached motions and documents.”, by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth(rdj) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
  45  
2013-07-01 46 NOTICE OF DEFAULT/FAILURE TO ANSWER TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by ORLY TAITZ (rdj) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
2013-07-02 47 RESPONSE re 45 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by MICHAEL JAMES ASTRUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nemeroff, Patrick) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
  47  
2013-07-02 48 MOTION for Leave to File Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration by MICHAEL JAMES ASTRUE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nemeroff, Patrick) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
  48  
2013-07-08 49 MOTION to Strike 47 Response to motion by ORLY TAITZ (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(rdj) (Entered: 07/09/2013)
  49  
2013-10-09 50 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Scott Rille, Motion for Leave to file Brief of Amicus Curiae. “Leave to file DENIED”, Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 10/9/2013. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. (rdj) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
2013-10-09 51 ORDER denying 45 Motion for Reconsideration; granting 48 Motion for Leave to File; denying 49 Motion to Strike. Upon consideration of defendant’s Motion 48 for leave to late file his opposition to plaintiff’s Motion for reconsideration, defendant’s motion is hereby GRANTED. Upon consideration of plaintiff’s Motion 49 to strike defendant’s opposition, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Upon consideration of plaintiff’s request 46 to treat the motion for reconsideration as conceded, plaintiff’s request is DENIED. Upon consideration of plaintiff’s Motion 45 for reconsideration, the opposition and reply thereto, and the record herein, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. This case was dismissed on August 30, 2011. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c) requires any motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly discovered evidence to be filed “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order.” Upon consideration of plaintiff’s request (appended to her motion for reconsideration) that this Court take judicial notice of certain information from the 1940 Census, plaintiff’s request is DENIED. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on October 9, 2013. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
2013-10-16 52 MOTION for Reconsideration re 51 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Strike by ORLY TAITZ “Let this be filed”, Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth(rdj) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
2013-10-23 53 NOTICE of Appearance by Eric J. Soskin on behalf of MICHAEL JAMES ASTRUE (Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
2013-11-04 54 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)
  54  
2013-11-04 55 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)
  55  
2013-11-12 56 REDACTED DOCUMENT- MOTION for Reconsideration to 52 MOTION for Reconsideration re 51 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Strike by ORLY TAITZ (rdj) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
2013-11-12 57 REPLY to opposition to motion 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 ORLY TAITZ. (rdj) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
2013-11-12 58 Memorandum in opposition to re 54 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 filed by ORLY TAITZ. (See docket entry 57 to view document)(rdj) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
2013-11-12 59 MOTION to Strike 54 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 ORLY TAITZ (rdj) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
2013-11-27 60 ORDER granting 54 Motion to Strike. Upon consideration of defendant’s Motion 54 to Strike plaintiff’s renewed Motion 52 for Reconsideration, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s motion is GRANTED and docket number 52 and its exhibits are stricken from the record, but maintained under seal. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on November 27, 2013. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
2013-11-27 61 ORDER denying 52 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 59 Motion to Strike. Upon consideration of plaintiff’s Motion [52 (sealed), 56] for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order 51 of October 9, 2013, denying plaintiff’s second Motion 45 for Reconsideration, defendant’s opposition 55 thereto, and plaintiff’s reply 57 , plaintiff’s third Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion 59 to Strike (1) defendant’s Motion to Strike and (2) defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is also DENIED. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on November 27, 2013. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 11/27/2013)

2 thoughts on “MD – Taitz v Colvin (formerly Astrue) – A total failure…

  1. Sigh. Once again Judge Lamberth let a golden opportunity pass to send Tatiz the message to quit abusing the federal court system with her frivolous garbage. Where is Clay Land when we really need him?

Comments are closed.