Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Litlebritdifrnt2 · **Posted:** Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:56 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

In the unlikely event that the whole social security number, or other private information, is crucial to a pleading, there is something an attorney can and should do -- file the document under seal. There are rules and procedures for doing that. They are intricate. They were ignored here because Leona Helmsley Taitz thinks herself above the law and that the rules are only for the little people.

Which rules are right there if you do the simple thing of checking the rule for redaction

Quote:

(d) Filings Made Under Seal.
The court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction. The court may later unseal the filing or order the person who made the filing to file a redacted version for the public record.

(e) Protective Orders.
For good cause, the court may by order in a case:

(1) require redaction of additional information; or

(2) limit or prohibit a nonparty’s remote electronic access to a document filed with the court.

(f) Option for Additional Unredacted Filing Under Seal.
A person making a redacted filing may also file an unredacted copy under seal. The court must retain the unredacted copy as part of the record.

(g) Option for Filing a Reference List.
A filing that contains redacted information may be filed together with a reference list that identifies each item of redacted information and specifies an appropriate identifier that uniquely corresponds to each item listed. The list must be filed under seal and may be amended as of right. Any reference in the case to a listed identifier will be construed to refer to the corresponding item of information.

But as you say Stern, the rules are for little people, not the world's most famous Constitutional Attorney :yawn:

raicha · **Posted:** Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:58 pm

I guess Orly can't keep screeching about mail tampering, on this issue at least. xxxhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=20113

All three pieces of mail were delivered on March 28, 2011. (They were allegedly mailed on March 24th.)

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23946

raicha wrote:

I guess Orly can't keep screeching about mail tampering, on this issue at least. xxxhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=20113

All three pieces of mail were delivered on March 28, 2011. (They were allegedly mailed on March 24th.)

She screamed that her "first" mailing she'd not received any returns that they'd been delivered... most likely because she'd never mailed them (kinda like another incident we know of).

These came back quickly, as they should have, so now the Court has her POS pleading.

Nothing on the docket yet in Taitz v Asture, however, and she must have had the same problem with her "Motion to Intervene" in Louisiana in Hornbeck, as there's nothing on the docket there either.

Litlebritdifrnt2 · **Posted:** Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:26 pm

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

mimi · **Posted:** Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:41 pm

The Hollister felony is covered in Renew America by James Lambert. This is a rather well-read online rag in Wingnuttia. Lambert also did an interview with Orly. I didn't watch it yet.

Quote:

Uploaded by IroquoisChief on Mar 26, 2011

James Lambert interviews Dr. Orly Taitz on Obama's ineligibility for POTUS and his use of a stolen Social Security number - Part 1 of 2

The link provided in the article to the second part of the video doesn't work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcDa46-Y2Co

Edit: I found the second video. Adding it below.

Note that the YouTube channel that houses the videos belongs to IroquoisChief. I believe that is Neil Turner, although it says "Hometown: Englewood, RI". I can't look for the correct video because Turner marked his stuff 'private' long ago.

The article that includes those videos:

Quote:

March 31, 2011
Lawyer files complaint w/ Soc. Sec. Dept. regarding origin of Obama's S/S number
By James Lambert

Orange County Lawyer Dr. Orly Taitz, esq. has filed a formal complaint last month with the Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue regarding her contention of alleged multiple irregularities involving the President's social security numbers. Investigators are alleging that the President has used a number of such numbers over a period of time. Taitz has yet to hear back from the Social Security Director. (See copy of her complaint below).

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/ ... plaint.pdf

What is most puzzling to Ms. Taitz is that the number that was used for Barack Obama's selective service registration (from 1980) was supposedly obtained in a state where he did not live. Ms. Taitz' complaint contends that there are numerous irregularities in her investigation that warrants the freedom of information search.

It is Ms. Taitz's contention that the President's old the social security number ([redacted by mimi] — confirmed by the federal government's selective website: http://www.sss.gov ) was issued in the state of Connecticut. The exact reason for acquiring this number in a state where Mr. Obama did not live (in 1980), is a complete mystery.

Ms. Taitz has worked with four private investigators who have confirmed that the number was previously used by Mr. Obama. Taitz takes her case to the public in an exclusive television interview that will be aired on several cable channels in San Diego this April (2011). [See below for video clips].[...]

Remainder:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/lambert/110331

*ETA YouTube description.

lyssandri · **Posted:** Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:48 am

Offtopic :

Butterfly Bilderberg (in her sig file) wrote:

"I first met attorney Orly Taitz, in person, in September of 2009. She is a very beautiful woman and ... if I wasn’t a married man I would probably sleep with her even though she is 20 years my senior." - He, Lucas Daniel Smith, Certificate of Authenticity and Provenance (31 March 2011)

Has it possibly occurred to He, Lucas Daniel Smith that We, the Sane People of the World, neither need nor even want to know his opinion of Ms. Taitz' boffability?

He, Lucas Smith, has always struck me as being rather delusionally impressed with himself and his own (in his mind, anyway) importance, but that "certificate of authenticity and provenance" was way over the top, even for him.

I used to do some painting and if anyone had ever thought that having an original Kriselda Jarnsaxa hanging in their home was some sort of ... I dunno.... noteworthy "deal" and asked me to do a certificate of authenticity and provenance, once I got done laughing at the idea, they'd just get a single page giving my name, the dates of when I painted it, what the piece was named and the date I'd signed the certificate. I can't imagine thinking my biography would be of any interest and I DEFINITELY wouldn't consider my opinion on the fuckability of my subject as anything to be commented on. Sheesh!

SueDB · **Posted:** Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:47 am

thorswitch wrote:

Offtopic :

Butterfly Bilderberg (in her sig file) wrote:

"I first met attorney Orly Taitz, in person, in September of 2009. She is a very beautiful woman and ... if I wasn’t a married man I would probably sleep with her even though she is 20 years my senior." - He, Lucas Daniel Smith, Certificate of Authenticity and Provenance (31 March 2011)

Has it possibly occurred to He, Lucas Daniel Smith that We, the Sane People of the World, neither need nor even want to know his opinion of Ms. Taitz' boffability?

He, Lucas Smith, has always struck me as being rather delusionally impressed with himself and his own (in his mind, anyway) importance, but that "certificate of authenticity and provenance" was way over the top, even for him.

I used to do some painting and if anyone had ever thought that having an original Kriselda Jarnsaxa hanging in their home was some sort of ... I dunno.... noteworthy "deal" and asked me to do a certificate of authenticity and provenance, once I got done laughing at the idea, they'd just get a single page giving my name, the dates of when I painted it, what the piece was named and the date I'd signed the certificate. I can't imagine thinking my biography would be of any interest and I DEFINITELY wouldn't consider my opinion on the fuckability of my subject as anything to be commented on. Sheesh!

Very rude, crass, quite impolite, and well we are dealing with trailer trash here - with appropriate apologies to the trailer.

You know the real con men are those that you don't know are con men. This guy spent a couple years in the can...he can't be that good a forger or con man.

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:52 am

mimi wrote:

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll2tSD6qYgc

Note that the YouTube channel that houses the videos belongs to IroquoisChief. I believe that is Neil Turner, although it says "Hometown: Englewood, RI". I can't look for the correct video because Turner marked his stuff 'private' long ago.

While the Chief may keep some things private, eg there are only five clips visible under his Youtube page, clicking on above link makes the clip available for me for viewing directly on YT, and as a bonus it lists many of the Chiefs other videos in the sidebar ...

From the Chiefs displayed profile:

Quote:

Profile
Name: Neil
Channel Views: 6,535
Total Upload Views: 52,221
Style: ---
Age: 75
Joined: Jul 7, 2007
Last Visit Date: 1 month ago
Subscribers: 100
The BELL HU-1A 'IROQUOIS' was America's first turbine-powered helicopter - December 1960. The Iroquois Chief was an Instructor Pilot on the first "Hueys" (HU-1A) to enter service in the Vietnam-era, when "Cleared Hot" meant you're cleared to land... but you'd better get out fast! It may be HOT (and deadly)!
Hometown: Edgewood, R.I.
Country: United States

mimi · **Posted:** Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:57 am

RTH10260 wrote:

mimi wrote:

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll2tSD6qYgc

Note that the YouTube channel that houses the videos belongs to IroquoisChief. I believe that is Neil Turner, although it says "Hometown: Englewood, RI". I can't look for the correct video because Turner marked his stuff 'private' long ago.

While the Chief may keep some things private, eg there are only five clips visible under his Youtube page, clicking on above link makes the clip available for me for viewing directly on YT, and as a bonus it lists many of the Chiefs other videos in the sidebar ...

From the Chiefs displayed profile:

Quote:

Profile
Name: Neil
Channel Views: 6,535
Total Upload Views: 52,221
Style: ---
Age: 75
Joined: Jul 7, 2007
Last Visit Date: 1 month ago
Subscribers: 100
The BELL HU-1A 'IROQUOIS' was America's first turbine-powered helicopter - December 1960. The Iroquois Chief was an Instructor Pilot on the first "Hueys" (HU-1A) to enter service in the Vietnam-era, when "Cleared Hot" meant you're cleared to land... but you'd better get out fast! It may be HOT (and deadly)!
Hometown: Edgewood, R.I.
Country: United States

oh yeah, he marked all his playlists as "private". You can't go to his channel and see what he's uploaded. But, you can search the YouTube under his name and see them. That's how I found the other clip and posted it.

raicha · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:48 pm

For those of you wondering if Orly knows how to prepare an affidavit of service by certified mail (I know, who is wondering?), we now have the answer.

She has posted copies of 3 documents "Certified Mail Proof of Service", "respectfully submitted" and signed by her very own self.

Question for the class: Can you spot the many problems with these proofs?

Hint 1: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4.
Hint 2: What makes an affidavit different from a nice letter to the court?
Hint 3: Who is suing who here?

No peeking at your neighbor's work! (That means you, Orly.)

Foggy · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:52 pm

Are the answers upside down at the bottom of p. 273? :-?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23946

I'm going to cross-post 2-3 posts from the poopies thread posted earlier...in the wrong thread by me :oops:

and a coupla responses.

I suppose the SSA, et al. got Orly's warning related to them tampering with her mail. It seems the second time is the charm.

:evil:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/ :evil:

Quote:

Summons and First Amended Complaint was received by the Commissioner of the Social Security administration Michael Astrue on 03.28.2011

Mailed on the 24th... yep, makes sense.

Then later she sez...

Quote:

Original complaint in Taitz v Astrue was served on the US attorney for the District of Columbia on [highlight]02.14.2011[/highlight]

Posted on | April 4, 2011 | No Comments

Interesting, since the summons in Taitz v Astrue was not issued until [highlight]2/16, 2011[/highlight]

Quote:

02/16/2011 1[RECAP] COMPLAINT against MICHAEL ASTRUE ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616036614) filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 02/22/2011)

[highlight]02/16/2011 Summons (1) Issued[/highlight] as to MICHAEL ASTRUE. (jf, ) (Entered: 02/22/2011)

And... I dunno. Would you serve the U.S. Attorney if they're not a party and also serve Astrue who is?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23946

raicha wrote...

realist wrote:

I suppose the SSA, et al. got Orly's warning related to them tampering with her mail. It seems the second time is the charm.

:evil:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/ :evil:

Quote:

Summons and First Amended Complaint was received by the Commissioner of the Social Security administration Michael Astrue on 03.28.2011

Mailed on the 24th... yep, makes sense.

So she has her "proof", but as I pointed out on the Taitz v Astrue thread, she has no idea what to do with it.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23946

raicha wrote:

realist wrote:

I suppose the SSA, et al. got Orly's warning related to them tampering with her mail. It seems the second time is the charm.

:evil:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/ :evil:

Quote:

Summons and First Amended Complaint was received by the Commissioner of the Social Security administration Michael Astrue on 03.28.2011

Mailed on the 24th... yep, makes sense.

So she has her "proof", but as I pointed out on the Taitz v Astrue thread, she has no idea what to do with it.

Indeed.

How about the additional info I added re the U.S. Attorney?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23946

raicha wrote:

realist wrote:

How about the additional info I added re the U.S. Attorney?

I'll keep trying to drag you over to the Taitz v. Astrue thread, where I said a while back:

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:06 pm

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

I question whether either has been served. She does not have a signed return receipt, and the tracking merely shows that the USPS left a notice when there was no one authorized to sign.

Realist, to answer your question, yes, both the authorized official for SSA and the United States Attorney should be served, per Rule 4. There are regulations that inform of the procedure, but Taitz is blissfully unaware of the body of administrative law that exists.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23946

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

I question whether either has been served. She does not have a signed return receipt, and the tracking merely shows that the USPS left a notice when there was no one authorized to sign.

Realist, to answer your question, yes, both the authorized official for SSA and the United States Attorney should be served, per Rule 4. There are regulations that inform of the procedure, but Taitz is blissfully unaware of the body of administrative law that exists.

Further query... Taitz also claims the U.S. Attorney was "served" the [highlight]Complaint[/highlight] in Taitz v Astrue on 2/14/11. The Summons was issued on 2/16/11. Mailing of a complaint (if received) may provide constructive notice (or sumptin' like that) but does it constitute "service"?

Litlebritdifrnt2 · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:13 pm

I absolutely =))

every time Oily confuses the term "filed" and "served" she seems to think that by "filing" something it is magically "served" by some sort of court serving fairy, who immediately sees a new document filed in the court and then whisks it off, with a flurry of fairy dust and unicorn farts, and magically serves the people that should be served. (Apologies for the image but I am imagining a character akin to the "Tooth Fairy" in "The Santa Claus" a big burly Federal Marshall equipped with fairy wings, a wand and hob nail boots) her ineptness just boggles the mind.

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

poutine · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:18 pm

Litlebritdifrnt2 wrote:

I absolutely =))

every time Oily confuses the term "filed" and "served" she seems to think that by "filing" something it is magically "served" by some sort of court serving fairy, who immediately sees a new document filed in the court and then whisks it off, with a flurry of fairy dust and unicorn farts, and magically serves the people that should be served. (Apologies for the image but I am imagining a character akin to the "Tooth Fairy" in "The Santa Claus" a big burly Federal Marshall equipped with fairy wings, a wand and hob nail boots) her ineptness just boggles the mind.

Court serving fairy, hahaha! I love that. I think all first-year lawyers believe those actually exist, by the way. The process of eventually breaking their hearts by telling them that there's no such thing is a painful one.

Quote:

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

Those pain in the ass disclosure oopsies happen to the best of us, don't worry. In my district I have noticed that the court doesn't send out deficiency notices for parties who are obviously individuals, though.

Litlebritdifrnt2 · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:26 pm

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

poutine · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:29 pm

Litlebritdifrnt2 wrote:

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

Litlebritdifrnt2 · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:53 pm

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:32 pm

Litlebritdifrnt2 wrote:

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

You will get a deficiency order cause you missed to list the number of knifes, forks and spoons to be presented on the evidence table ... :lol:

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9710

raicha wrote:

Hint 2: What makes an affidavit different from a nice letter to the court?

Well, duh. The notary seal of course!

Suranis · **Joined:** Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:04 am **Posts:** 5357

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

raicha wrote:

Hint 2: What makes an affidavit different from a nice letter to the court?

Well, duh. The notary seal of course!

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Who is online