I may have missed reporting on this one. Orly had raised some incredible arguments and the Appeal’s Court responded ‘kindly’ after the State had declined to even respond… Orly at her best and worst.
Orly Taitz appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Defendant in this action alleging denying Taitz’s motion to reconsider; and denying her motion to reopen and recuse. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Taitz v. Colvin, No. 1:13-cv-01878-ELH (D. Md. May 13, 2014; June 13, 2014; July 25, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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 loses another one. Poor Orly is not too happy. A wipeout on Thursday, normally these things happen on Friday 🙂
TAITZ v COLVIN ECF 36 –MEMORANDUM OPINION
TAITZ v COLVIN ECF 37 – ORDER
SueDB at the Fogbow helps understand
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is this 13th day of May, 2014, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED:
1. Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment” (ECF 28) is construed as a Motion for Summary Judgment and is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 31) is DENIED;
3. Plaintiff’s request for relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a), see ECF 31, is DENIED;
4. Plaintiff’s request for an order directing defendant to prepare a Vaughn index, see
ECF 31, is DENIED as moot.
5. Plaintiff’s “Motion/Request for the Defense to Prepare Vaugn [sic] Index” (ECF 14) is DENIED as moot;
6. The Clerk SHALL MAIL a copy of this Order and the accompanying Memorandum Opinion to the plaintiff; and
7. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case
Well done Orly.
Orly has been filing daily ‘updates’ about her case Taitz v Colvin filed in Maryland District Court
April 3, 2014. Still no order from Judge Hollander in a case dealing with Obama’s use of a stolen CT Social Security number REDACTED. the decision is expected any day now
How one can expect a decision “any day now” for so many consecutive days, is something surreal, however, if Orly were to check the docket the last time it took the Court almost 80 days to respond to a set of motions filed. Furthermore, it should be self evident by now, that the Court is going to dismiss the FOIA case.
[Update: The Judge corrected the record and ordered the document to be filed. It’s time for a ruling which by all likelihood will be a dismissal. There is just nothing there.]
Orly has filed a document which, under the rules of the Court, cannot be filed without leave of court. Judge Hollander is tightening down on the rules. I can already predict her next move.
REPLY to Response to Motion re 28 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Carolyn Colvin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Loucks, Allen) (Entered: 03/02/2014)
Orly’s reading abilities continue to trip her up, for example
In support of allegation 2, Plaintiff submitted Opposition Exhibit 1, SSA’s November 16, 2012 FOIA response to a different FOIA request for Mr. Bounel’s information. In this response, SSA states that “the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) restricts disclosure of the [requested] information.” Plaintiff argues that this letter proves that SSA has located records for Mr. Bounel. However, the November 16, 2012 FOIA response does not state SSA located any records for Mr. Bounel. In addition, Plaintiff fails to acknowledge a material difference in the 2012 FOIA request and her April 26, 2013 FOIA request, which caused SSA to respond differently to the requests.
Plaintiff provides no additional relevant evidence to support her FOIA allegations. Opposition Exhibits 2-3 include copies of records of a deceased individual’s SSN, who Plaintiff asserts should appear in SSA’s records immediately before the records of Mr. Bounel. However, Plaintiff did not request the records of this individual in her April 26, 2013 FOIA request. Further, the existence of this individual’s records does not prove the existence of records for Mr. Bounel. In addition, Opposition Exhibit 4 is an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions from an unrelated case, which is irrelevant to this case.
Orly is cruising towards yet another dismissal. There is no evidence that Harrison J Bounel ever filed for a social security number.
In FOIA cases, an agency’s release of documents eliminates any live controversy between the parties because it gives the requester the relief sought in the FOIA complaint.
As to the social security number belonging to our President:
SSA has previously advised Plaintiff that SSA cannot disclose information about the SSN she asserts belongs to Mr. Bounel because the individual holding the SSN is living. See September 2013 Wiggins Suppl. Declaration ¶ 7. Plaintiff has made multiple FOIA requests to SSA and initiated previous lawsuits for information about the SSN she asserts belongs to Mr. Bounel. See Taitz v. Astrue, 806 F.Supp.2d 214, 217 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’ d, No. 11-5304, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10713 (D.C. Cir. May 25, 2013) (SSA properly withheld a Form SS -5 under FOIA Exemption 6 because disclosure of the form, which the requestor contended was for a number being fraudulently used by President Barack Obama, would implicate a substantial privacy interest while serving no public interest cognizable under FOIA.); Taitz v. Obama, 707 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010), recons. denied, 754 F.Supp.2d 57 (D.D.C. 2010). SSA has consistently withheld information about this SSN under FOIA exemption 6, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has upheld such withholding. Id.
2014-01-30 28 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by Carolyn Colvin Responses due by 2/18/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Loucks, Allen) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
I predict another loss for Orly, leaving her record of zero wins fully intact.