14. For all of the above reasons not only the motion for affirmance needs to be denied, but the Court of appeals needs to issue a Summary judgment granting an appeal.

Oh, are the court staff in DC overseeing the Mississippi dockets now?

Mr. Tepper and Mr. Begley are in big, big trouble, now that Orly has let loose the Flying Monkey Brigade on court staff.

Wrong venue.

I should think any reversal at all would be interpreted by Orly as meaning: "Reversed with instructions to order the immediate arrest of Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah."

First she had a trial on the merits in Georgia. The verdict was guilty, but the judge was bribed to say otherwise.

Then she got some evidence in Arizona ... well, it was her own evidence, but now it's Certified Confirmed^®™ by Sheriff Joe.

Then she got discovery in Mississippi, when the defendants filed answers.



Now that she's won a default against the Director of the Social Security Administration ...

... I think we can proceed directly to the sentencing phase ...

Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-5304
Docketed: 10/31/2011
Nature of Suit: 2895 Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Orly Taitz v. Michael Astrue
Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Fee Status: Fee Paid
Case Type Information:
1) Civil US
2) United States
3) Originating Court Information:

District: 0090-1 : 1:11-cv-00402-RCL
Lead: 1:11-cv-00402-RCL
Trial Judge: Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Judge
Date Filed: 02/16/2011
Date Order/Judgment:
Date NOA Filed:
08/30/2011
10/25/2011
01/04/2012

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE filed [1351030] by Helen L. Gilbert and co-counsel Mark B. Stern on behalf of Appellee Michael James Astrue. [11-5304] (Gilbert, Helen)

01/04/2012 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND RELATED CASES FILED [1351031] by Michael James Astrue [Service Date: 01/04/2012 ] [11-5304] (Gilbert, Helen)

01/04/2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [1351032] to notice [1351030-2], certificate [1351031-2] filed by Michael James Astrue. [11-5304] (Gilbert, Helen)

01/19/2012 MOTION filed [1353593] by Michael James Astrue for summary affirmance. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 02/03/2012) [Service Date: 01/19/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11-5304] (Gilbert, Helen)

02/13/2012 MOTION filed [1358927] by Orly Taitz to permit pro se electronic filing (Response to Motion served by mail due on 02/24/2012) [Service Date: 02/11/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11-5304]

02/13/2012 MOTION filed [1358929] by Orly Taitz to extend time to file response to motion for summary affirmance (Response to Motion served by mail due on 02/24/2012) [Service Date: 02/11/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11-5304]

03/01/2012 CLERK'S ORDER filed [1361423] denying without prejudice motion to permit pro se electronic filing [1358927-2]; granting motion to extend time [1358929-2]; response to motion for summary affirmance [1353593-2] now due on 03/16/2012 [11-5304]

03/16/2012 INCORRECT DOCKET ENTRY-DISREGARD--RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1364401] by Orly Taitz to motion for summary affirmance [1353593-2] [Service Date: 03/15/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11-5304]--[Edited 03/20/2012 by KRM]

03/16/2012 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1364625] to motion for summary affirmance [1353593-2](Reply to Response by Mail and Response to Cross Motion due on 03/29/2012) combined with a MOTION FILED [STYLED AS "MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANT"] by Orly Taitz for summary reversal [Service Date: 03/15/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11-5304]

04/27/2012 MOTION filed [1371429] by Orly Taitz for default judgment. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 05/07/2012) [Service Date: 04/24/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11-5304]

In Orlylaw, a "Motion" for Default is merely a matter of sending a letter.

And those darn clerks just keep on a keepin' on messin' with Orly and doing things wrong... cuz that dastardly regime is in charge of 'em...

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=51223

the clerks in DC finally filed my request, but docketted it wrong: it was supposed to be a request for the technical default. They entered it as a motion for a default judgment by the court, which is different

Posted on | April 30, 2012 | 1 Comment

They're about to get another screeching phone call!!

Well, I am sure the clerk will be convinced to see it her way once she points out the court rule or statute that allow a "technical default" to be entered.

Well, I am sure the clerk will be convinced to see it her way once she points out the court rule or statute that allow a "technical default" to be entered.

It is always the clerk's decision. See, in Orlylaw, if there is one place anywhere -in any court, in any state, at any level - where there is a rule allowing a clerk to enter a "technical default", then that rule applies everywhere, in any court, in any state, at any level.

You guys are always saying that Orly Taitz never learns anything. But she does. And when she learns that one thing, she applies it everywhere and anywhere.

In California, if a properly served defendant fails to answer a complaint, the plaintiff may ask the clerk to enter a default. And the clerk has the authority to do that. Ipso facto, presto, ta da - that must be the rule that applies to the US Court of Appeals on the other side of country.

Orlylaw is easy and does not require actual study at a law school or personally sitting for a pesky bar exam.

It's freakin' unbelievable that Commissioner of Social Security Michael Astrue failed to file a response. Orly's got him right where she wants him.

It's freakin' unbelievable that Commissioner of Social Security Michael Astrue failed to file a response. Orly's got him right where she wants him.

It's freakin' unbelievable that Commissioner of Social Security Michael Astrue failed to file a response. Orly's got him right where she wants him.

You guys are always saying that Orly Taitz never learns anything. But she does. And when she learns that one thing, she applies it everywhere and anywhere.