Orly loses another one
This one is a FOIA request filed with the Postmaster. Orly has been trying to get the judge to recuse herself and the judge rejects Orly’s “arguments”. Expect an appeal and dismissal.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dr. ORLY TAITZ, Esq.,
PATRICK DONAHOE, Postmaster General, et al.,
Civil Action No. 13-1020 (RCL)
This is a case brought under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, against the Postmaster General and the Inspector General of the Postal Service for records related to the plaintiff-birther’s claim that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
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.
Raicha, at the Fogbow, exposes the latest problems with Orly’s filings
Once again demonstrating complete incompetence:
Orly Taitz filed a motion for summary judgment in this case. To win a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must show that there are no triable issues of fact. Therefore, there should be no trial and the case should be decided in their favor based on the law applied to undisputed facts.
The defendants opposed the motion for summary judgment.
Orly Taitz filed this reply. And claimed that there are three issues of triable fact.
What a total maroon.
In other words, Orly has argued that there are triable issues of fact, even though she is asking for summary judgment, totally undermining her own positions. Wonderful…
Butterfly Bilderberg provides us with a nice overview of what a motion for summary judgment should look like:
- Summary Judgment Standard. “[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the . . . court of the basis for its motion, and . . . [must] demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
- Admissible Evidence Required. Any materials supporting the motion for summary judgment that would not be admissible in evidence at trial over a proper objection, assuming the presence in the courtroom of all testifying witnesses, will be disregarded, unless the Court in its discretion either (a) gives a party an additional opportunity to support an assertion of fact or an objection to an assertion of fact, or (b) considers a fact as undisputed for purposes of the motion where the other party failed to object that the material cited does not properly support the fact.
- Authentication of Documents. Each document offered in support of the motion for summary judgment generally must be authenticated, unless the party opposing the motion proffers the same document in support of that party’s response, or the Court in its discretion decides to consider the document where the other party failed to object on grounds of failure to authenticate the document. The movant must lay a foundation in an affidavit to establish that the affiant has the requisite personal knowledge and competence to authenticate the documents attached to the affidavit.
- Argument is Not Evidence. Neither argument in a legal memorandum or brief, nor argument in oral argument, is evidence.
- All Material Facts Must be Supported by Admissible Evidence. The Court may find that the movant has not established there is no genuine issue as to a fact if the fact is not supported by admissible evidence. If that fact is sufficiently material it could result in denial of summary judgment. Before filing a motion for summary judgment, review the supporting materials against the statement of undisputed facts to make sure each and every fact identified as an undisputed fact is supported by admissible evidence.
0 REPLY to opposition to motion re 16 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by PATRICK DONAHUE, DAVID C. WILLIAMS. (Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
Orly failed to raise the proper issues
In their opening brief, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the adequacy of their search for responsive documents as well as on the three withholdings taken pursuant to Exemption 7(C). See Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 16, at 5-8 (“USPS MSJ”).
Plaintiff’s opposition brief does not contest any aspect of the search, taking issue only with aspects of the response to Plaintiff’s appeal. See Plaintiff’s Opposition (“Pl. Opp.”), ECF No. 18 at ¶ 14 et seq. Nor does Plaintiff contest any withholding pursuant to Exemption 7(C) or any legal argument made in support of the withholdings. See generally Pl. Opp. Plaintiff has thus conceded any arguments as to the adequacy of Defendants’ search and to the redactions taken in the documents released.
But did manage to raise irrelevant issues
The arguments Plaintiff has made, by contrast, describe ancillary matters, none of which have any bearing on the parties’ arguments concerning summary judgment, and which rehash other matters already decided by, or presently before, the Court.
For example, Plaintiff’s contention that she is entitled to summary judgment based on the Defendants’ alleged lack of timely response, see Pl. Opp. at ¶¶ 2-3, has already been adjudicated by the Court. See ECF No. 14.
For this reason, Plaintiff’s argument would be relevant to a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), but not in response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment or in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s arguments concerning alleged misconduct by Defendants and the Court pertaining to this issue, see Pl. Opp at ¶¶ 4-7, are likewise inapposite to summary judgment, and moreover, merely rehash similar tendentious allegations raised in Plaintiff’s motion to recuse. Compare ECF No. 17.
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.
Judge Lamberth again… How dare he granting all these motions…
ORDER granting 13 Motion for Briefing Schedule. Upon consideration of defendant’s Motion 13 to Set Briefing Schedule, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s motion is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that briefing in this matter shall proceed as follows: Defendants shall move for summary judgment no later than December 13, 2013; plaintiff shall file any response thereto no later than January 3, 2014; and defendants shall file a reply, if any, no later than January 24, 2014. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on November 27, 2013. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 11/27/2013)