Educating the Confused – Orly and timely filing of appeal

On July 29th Orly writes: Taitz v Colvin was appealed to the 4th Circuit

However the lower court ruled on May 13, 2014 and the time for appeal is 60 days (FRAP Rule 4(a)(1)(B)(ii)). Instead of filing the appeal, Orly decided to file a foolish motion with the lower court.

As an attorney, plaintiff would have known that she was entitled to appeal this Court’s ruling if she disagreed with it. To my knowledge, she did not do so. Instead, she has filed several post-ruling motions. See ECF 38, ECF 40.
Presently pending is plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case, and for the Court to recuse and to transfer the case to another judge on the ground of actual conflict of interest. See ECF 43. The motion is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 and F.R. Civ. P. 60 (b)(2) and 60 (b)(6).

There is no evidence on Pacer that the case was filed timely with the 4th Circuit. Also Rule 4(a)(4)(A) does not apply:

(4) Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeal.

(A) If a party timely files in the district court any of the following motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion:

(vi) for relief under Rule 60 if the motion is filed no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered.

Sincethe motion with the lower court, which was denied, was filed on July 21, well outside the 28 day limit.

07/21/2014 43 MOTION to Reopen Case; Motion for recusal; Motion to transfer case; Second Motion for reconsideration by Orly Taitz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(jf2, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/22/2014)

Perhaps Orly wants to appeal the order denying motion 43? That would be rather entertaining. Never a boring moment with Orly fumbling her way through the rules of the court.


Orly v xxxx – Nothing much to see

Orly has been filing some motions, none with any relevance. Orly has now been reduced to a daily update that the court(s) have not yet ruled on her cases.

For obvious reasons. And she may be surprised when the finally do rule that they will reject her follies.

As I said, Orly’s cases have long since been settled and now we are waiting for the final dismissal.

Educating the Confused – Orly’s illogical ‘logic’

Orly is excited because she ‘argued’ in a draft ‘letter’ that Judge Moore could forward under 18 USC 3332, the information to a Grand Jury and all would be well. Typically, when Orly files a draft, people refrain from commenting until she has submitted, email, mailed or otherwise distributed the document. Orly however has taken strength from the ‘fact’ that she ‘knows’ that ‘Obama’s Personal Attorney’ tracks Orly’s follies on her Blog (who is Fussy btw?) and presumes that therefore, if Orly writes something which is poorly informed, that Tepper or others would properly educate her. Now I am pleased to hear that Orly recognizes the wisdom of the many Obots both those with and without (me included) formal legal training who have managed to successfully predict the outcome of all her cases, and that she is therefore looking for some help in her legal ‘arguments’.

Obama’s personal attorney Scott J. Tepper stated during phone conference to Judge Wingate in MS, in Taitz et al v Democratic Party, Obama, Pelosi, Onaka, Fussy [sic], Astrue  that he reads Taitz website daily. Taitz  knew that if she is mistaken and there is a precedent stating that the Supreme Court judge of the state court cannot forward evidence of a crime to the federal Grand Jury, Obama’s attorneys will find this precedent and will post it on one of their blogs.

Continue reading

Orly’s draft letter to AL Supreme Court Justice Moore

When the law fails, it’s time for flattery [Warning: Link to Orly’s blog, click at your own risk]… In a draft letter to Judge Moore she ‘observes’ that

Orly: I read your brilliant analysis in McInnish v Chapman, a case relating to Barack Obama’s run for the U.S. President while using a fabricated birth certificate.

Orly insists, without much legal supporting evidence that under 18 USC 3332, any judge may forward information to a grand jury. In fact the only legal cases she does reference have no relevance to the issue, but are meant to remind Moore of what a Federal Judge did when he forced Moore to remove a religious statue.

What Orly, and others, may have failed to realize is that there are two statutes under which a grand jury may be convened and these grand juries are very different beasts.

Continue reading

MD – Taitz v Colvin – Orly loses another one

But hope springs eternal..

Judge Hollander writes:

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed before the SS A responded to her FOIA request, and has been rendered moot by the SSA’s response to her FOIA request. If plaintiff takes issue with the adequacy of the SSA’s response, she must amend her complaint to add allegations that the SSA’s response was deficient.
Accordingly, I will dismiss plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, without prejudice, and with leave to amend within 21 days of the docketing of the accompanying Order, so that plaintiff may properly allege the claims she raised in her Opposition. I will also deny plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF 9), without prejudice.
Orly wishful thinking:
The judges stated that the plantiff (sic) Taitz might be correct, however at this time she cannot rule in her favor as her original complaint was filed before SSA responded, so the judge gave Taitz an opportunity to refile a second amended complaint and to add the new allegations. This is a great development. This all but assures that the judge will order the SSA to release the SS-5, Social security application of resident of CT, Harrison (Harry) Bounel, whose CT SSN REDACTED was stolen by Obama and used in his tax returns. Taitz will be very careful not to be Breitbarted or Fuddied in the next 21 days.
She will be FOIA’ed… Such a fool.
So let me predict:
Orly files a motion to amend, the SSA will respond with how the search has been performed and no evidence of any social security application by Harrison Bounel will have been found, or alternatively, it fails to be linked to President Obama’s security certificate.
Orly will object, claiming that there must be such a document and the judge will grant the motion to dismiss, and Orly will file 1) a motion for reconsideration which will be dismissed 2) an appeal which will be dismissed 3) Orly file complain to the Supreme Court who will refuse to grant cert.
President Obama retires from his second term as our President… And nothing happens.
In the mean time Orly will have gone fully ballistic in her claims about Loretta Fuddy and others, and noone will take her seriously. Fascinating… And she single handedly undermined Vogt and Zullo with her release of Johanna’s Long Form Birth Certificate.
Soros should be proud of her.

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.

Examining Johanna’s LFBC PDF

Orly has made available a fully unredacted PDF of “Hawaii Girl” Johanna XXXX’s long form birth certificate which was obtained in 1995. Orly is, unsurprisingly, confused about the whole issue and believes that this document was obtained in 2011… Sigh…

But now let’s look at the document in more detail:

122,387 bytes Shasum 5c14e5659931ac3db0278ec4207578bdf59c5a13

PDF Format: 1.4
Media Box: 612×396
Content Creator: Canon iR-ADV 8105  PDF
Encoding software: Adobe PSL 1.1e for Canon
Creation Date: May 4, 2011, 10:17 PM
Modification Date: Nov 25, 2013, 10:01 AM

pdfimages -j Johanna-BC.pdf Johanna creates 4 files

Rotated: 90 degrees clockwise
Shasum: a71d0fa7abcbc5dd92a2bcc09d1ee8b1cf0e3443  Johanna-000.jpg
150×150 dpi 825×1275 pixels (lots of white at right side (bottom jpeg))
Embedded Comment: “Canon Inc”

Rotated: 90 degrees clockwise
Shasum: 4798c65ba40fe11743045ae1ede44f48fceab93e  Johanna-001.pbm
1416×1792 pixels

Rotated: 90 degrees clockwise
Shasum: 678ad4edae3ba01e332b3e102ffc441d02261908  Johanna-002.pbm
554×1040 pixels

Rotated: 90 degrees clockwise
Shasum: 4992b1910c50520847720aea848b69e8da63d398  Johanna-003.jpg
150×150 dpi 825×1275 pixels
Embedded Comment: “Canon Inc”

There are no obvious halos, and unlike the WH LFBC PDF, the gaps behind the bitmap text that is removed is filled with a background color, which obviously reduces the halo effect