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.

3 thoughts on “DC – Taitz v Donahue – Defendant/plaintiff who knows..

  1. Yes, I am not comfortable with your claims about Klayman. Yes, the judge’s report does mention some ‘inappropriate touching’ but that is a far cry from the terms you used.

  2. PS: I do not want to prohibit you from posting here, as I believe that you contribute much to the conversation. It’s just that I’d like to focus on issues. Which is sometimes hard when you see them clowning around.

Comments are closed.