MD – Taitz v Colvin – Appeal -Dismissed

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.

Advertisement

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.

MD- Taitz v Colvin – Dismissed

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

ORDER
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’s fleeting hope

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.

MD – Taitz v Colvin – Rejected – Orly needs to file a motion for leave

[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.

MD – Taitz v Colvin – Response to plaintiff’s response

03/02/2014 32 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.

MD – Taitz v Colvin – motion to dismiss second amended complaint

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.

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.

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

Continue reading

MD – Taitz v Colvin – FOIA

Orly has filed a suit she has not publicized. She filed the case in the name of “Defend our Freedoms Foundation” but the court quickly realized that Orly was not admitted to the Bar of the Court and could therefore not be the ‘lawyer’ on the case… ROTFL. As to the case, Orly is trying to figure out how the DOJ figured out her bank accounts when it threatened to do its j0b and collect on the $20,000 sanctions… No wonder she is trying to keep this low key. They threatened to put a lien on her house, and her actions ruined her credit and caused her ’embarrassment’ when the bank employees figured out what was going on.

The Fogbow strikes… 🙂

Continue reading