TAITZ v ASTRUE - ACT II (United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit)

kate520 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:39 pm

Ok, I need a translation of sonfucing. Do you mean confusing, cuz if so I am.

GreatGrey · **Posted:** Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:03 pm

kate520 wrote:

Ok, I need a translation of sonfucing. Do you mean confusing, cuz if so I am.

Sonfucing? Sounds nasty.

Piffle · **Posted:** Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:50 pm

Clownselor Lenorly, ESQ wrote:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Idiot. She can't even identify the court correctly.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals is DC's equivalent of a state supreme court. (Orly's en boink appeal is, of course, in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- an entirely different court.) Groan.

BFB · **Posted:** Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:52 pm

Piffle wrote:

Clownselor Lenorly, ESQ wrote:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Idiot. She can't even identify the court correctly.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals is DC's equivalent of a state supreme court. (Orly's en boink appeal is, of course, in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- an entirely different court.) Groan.

Details are for peasants.

Piffle · **Posted:** Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:10 pm

BFB wrote:

Details are for peasants.

Right. Only a serf would care if it's the wrong court, much less something so trivial as relying on a nonexistent rule.

Our favorite Konstitutional Attorney ESQ wrote:

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 201 c(2) Plaintiff…requests this honorable court to take judicial noticeof the sworn affidavit…

Whoops! There are no federal rules of civil procedure with three-digit numbers.

Yoo hoo, Dr. Orly! Could it be that you meant Federal Rules of Evidence? No biggie, I'm sure.

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:05 am

neonzx wrote:

:evil: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=113715 :evil:

Quote:

Motion for judicial notice and petition to supplement En Banc petition

Hmmmm -- am I the only one who rememers his TFB Online Law School lesson saying something like no new facts can be introduced in appeal (not that the Arpaio daffydavid itself stands to be a fact, and said daffydavid has been hijacked and is not even addressed for Orlenas case in court).

Paul Pieniezny · **Posted:** Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:27 am

kate520 wrote:

Ok, I need a translation of sonfucing. Do you mean confusing, cuz if so I am.

Confucius say "May you speak an interesting language." Or was it "May you have an interesting keyboard" ?

Chirley, it was just an additional hint that Orly typoed "c" when she needed an "s". Sorry about that.

Northland10 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:23 pm

How does she manage taking a legible electronic document, such as the Affidavit (or the LFBC in MS) and make it almost illegible. Does she print it on 5 settings below draft, using 10 year old toner, rub it over the ground for a while and re-scan it on the scanner where her and CEL3 worked on their briefs.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23597

Most likely rather than copyIng from whatever the original legible copy she had, or scanning it then printing from it, she's making copies of copies. By now she's using about a 100th generation copy.

Suranis · **Joined:** Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:04 am **Posts:** 5254

Its the best way to avoid creating layers and leaving evidence of fraud.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:03 am

You have to understand. With Orly it is not about the details of what she filed or what she did. Quality means nothing. It is that she did something. Then she can boast to her FM's that she filed this or wrote something. It is all show and no substance.

Paul Pieniezny · **Posted:** Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:03 am

Northland10 wrote:

How does she manage taking a legible electronic document, such as the Affidavit (or the LFBC in MS) and make it almost illegible. Does she print it on 5 settings below draft, using 10 year old toner, rub it over the ground for a while and re-scan it on the scanner where her and CEL3 worked on their briefs.

And there you are, trying to make sense of it all. Normally, people who scan with a scanner or pinter cum scanner will automatically save a printable copy of the scan somewhere on the hard disk of their computer. But Orly probably does not have the foggiest idea where they are stored. And if she knew, she would not be able to open the PDFs because of all the viruses on her machines.

Basically, I think she keeps one extra copy after every scan and copy operation and after mislaying the original, is stuck with the copy which is probably the worst of the bunch since she did not use it for sending. To make it look like a scan, she scans it again. probably only 6th - 7th generation.

Northland10 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:35 am

Reality Check wrote:

You have to understand. With Orly it is not about the details of what she filed or what she did. Quality means nothing. It is that she did something. Then she can boast to her FM's that she filed this or wrote something. It is all show and no substance.

Sorry... the heat around here lately caused me to fall into an episode of extreme forgetfulness. I was assuming she was submitting this for the court. How could I have been so silly. :oops:

June bug · **Posted:** Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:35 pm

Northland10 wrote:

How does she manage taking a legible electronic document, such as the Affidavit (or the LFBC in MS) and make it almost illegible. Does she print it on 5 settings below draft, using 10 year old toner, rub it over the ground for a while and re-scan it on the scanner where her and CEL3 worked on off their briefs.

FIFY.

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4216

Bitch is PISSED.

:evil:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?attachment_id=126775 :evil:

Quote:

Taitz v Astrue Court of Appeals petition to supplement

Posted on | June 24, 2012 | No Comments

Taitz v Astrue Court of Appeals petition to supplement [PDF]

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:11 am

neonzx wrote:

Bitch is PISSED.

:evil:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?attachment_id=126775 :evil:

Quote:

Taitz v Astrue Court of Appeals petition to supplement

Posted on | June 24, 2012 | No Comments

Taitz v Astrue Court of Appeals petition to supplement [PDF]

Pissed fot sure. The pdf begins with her request for bond documents in her Indiana ordeal. =))

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:09 am

neonzx wrote:

Quote:

Taitz v Astrue Court of Appeals petition to supplement

Posted on | June 24, 2012 | No Comments

Taitz v Astrue Court of Appeals petition to supplement [PDF]

This ought to impress the hell out of all the judges there, especially Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Taitz en banc petition (page 6) wrote:

12. On 05.75.20 judges Rogers, Griffth and Cavanough came up with the decision that the redacted Social Security application should not be released for two reasons:

What are the odds Orly's next filing will demand recusal from Judges Rogers, Griffith and Kavanaugh?

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3517

Joseph Robidoux III wrote:

What are the odds Orly's next filing will demand recusal from disbarment ofJudges Rogers, Griffith and Kavanaugh?

This, also. Too.

lyssandri · **Posted:** Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:00 am

Someone needs to sit her down with a dictionary and go over the definition of "likely." It's clear she has no clue.

ObjectiveDoubter · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:13 pm

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=200417 :twisted:

Quote:

Deranged, unhinged pretend-lawyer Lena says:
Breaking news! More criminal compicity in one of the highest courts in the nation!

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

29839 Santa Margarita ste 100

RanchoSanta Margarita,CA92688

Ph.949-683-5411 Fax 949-766-7603

US COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THEDISTRICT OF COLUMBIACIRCUIT
_____________________________________________________________

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ,
Appellant,
V
Michael Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Appellee

Demand to withdraw/revoke unlawfully issued mandate.

Demand to investigate nefarious activity/corruption in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Oh that is gonna make the Court see it her way, along with these usual gems:

Quote:

Taitz provided an undeniable evidence showing Barack Hussein Obama usurping the U.S. Presidency while using a stolen Social Security number from a state where he never resided. A court employee, who issued such mandate is complicit in Social Security fraud, elections fraud and committed an act of treason,

Edit: Question: So if they decided to shine her on

-- not hear her appeal as the whole Court -- do they issue a notice of that or do they just issue whatever they did on the 25th? And is someone able to get a copy of that or a link?

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:39 pm

It's only a claim of "compicity" on her Web site. Could have been far worse.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23597

I'm on my phone, hint... Check the docket that Orly posted. Look very carefully for a mandate issued in Astrue.
Next hint: Check the RUEMMLER docket.

Just sayin'

I'll be away for at least a couple more hours.

ObjectiveDoubter · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:13 pm

TollandRCR wrote:

It's only a claim of "compicity" on her Web site. Could have been far worse.

I think this may merit an addition to the Orly Dictionary of Legal and Non-legal terms, although my mind seems to be in the gutter, figuring out what it means. :oops:

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23597

Astrue Docket from Olry's site which she published in conjunction of her claim of corruption by the D.C. Court of Appeal due to issuing a mandate prior to ruling on her Motion for a Hearing En Banc...

Quote:

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]

05/25/2012 PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1375820] denying motion for default judgment [1371429-2]; denying motion for summary reversal [1364625-2]; granting motion for summary affirmance [1353593-2], withholding issuance of the mandate. Before Judges: Rogers, Griffith and Kavanaugh. [11-5304]

06/04/2012 PETITION filed [1377943] by Appellant Orly Taitz for rehearing en banc. [Service Date: 05/31/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 16-20. [11-5304]

06/20/2012 SUPPLEMENT [1380221] to petition for rehearing en banc [1377943-2] filed by Orly Taitz [Service Date: 06/18/2012] [11-5304]

Perhaps it's just my old eyes, but I don't see where the Mandate was issued.

Now, even had it been... nope, not going there.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23597

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=200417 :evil:

Quote:

Frank Bolivar
July 27th, 2012 @ 11:32 am

So where’s the Mandate? It’s not on the docket you published.

arto
July 27th, 2012 @ 12:27 pm

WOW! YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG ,ORLY.THE MARXIST HAVE INFILTRATED ALL BRANCHES OF GOV. DO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT A DECISION LIKE YOURS ISN’T REVIEWED BY SOME JUDGE BEFORE IT’S ISSUED? [WTF?] OR, DO YA THINK THE JUDGES ARE SIMPLY PART OF THIS TOO. I HOPE THEY REVERSE THIS AND AT LEAST GIVE YOU A BUT I’VE GOT MY DOUBTS. BEST OF LUCK ART

Harry
July 27th, 2012 @ 12:29 pm

You mean our court system is CORRUPT-??? Is thios a surprise to anyone???

jobethian
July 27th, 2012 @ 1:40 pm

Yes! Thank you. The criminal cover-up must STOP. Our National security is more important than protecting this one lawless imposter.

dr_taitz@yahoo.com
July 27th, 2012 @ 1:46 pm

they sent it to me by e-mail, it was sent to the district court and the district court e-mailed it to me via ecf.

but... there's still no link and nothing on the docket.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

TAITZ v ASTRUE - ACT II (United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit)

Who is online