Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 5966
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby RTH10260 » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:04 pm

I wonder what prompted this (from Orly's site):

Ongoing Bar proceedings? -xx

Disrupting Judge Lamberth while he was writing an order with the statement Show Cause ... :?:

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 830
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby woodworker » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:08 pm

I wonder what prompted this (from Orly's site):

Ongoing Bar proceedings? -xx

Disrupting Judge Lamberth while he was writing an order with the statement Show Cause ... :?:

Maybe advice from her Liberi co-counsel.
My avatar is a likeness of my bestest puppy "Bruin." There is no truth to the rumor, despite what Geritol says, that Bruin and I are twins.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 9247
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby esseff44 » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:11 pm

I wonder what prompted this (from Orly's site):

Please, do not call judge Lamberth or DC courtHe will take his time and whenever he is ready, he will issue the final order whether to release or not to release the SS-5 to the never assigned Social Security xxx-xx-4425 (my redaction) that Obama is using. If you try to contact the judge, it might be considered an improper exparte contact and will only upset the judge.At this point all you can do, is wait for him and for the 9th circuit to issue a decision on the FOIA .

[edit]Redacshuns[/edit]

What does the 9th Circuit have to do with the FOIA decision? Am I missing something? Perhaps she has realized her poor handling of the judge and his clerks and is just getting her appeals ready.

User avatar
shrek
Posts: 1216
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:48 am

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby shrek » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:14 pm

I remember working in London and bundling documents together to be sent to a barrister, wrapping them in ribbon, lighting a candle to drip wax over the place where the ribbons joined, and then affixing my seal to it before the wax got cold. There was something wonderfully Dickensian about it.

How Quaint. Up here we just get envelopes ---> brown paper & selloptape or if for really big briefs a cardboard box. No sealing wax though :((

User avatar
BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby BFB » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:15 pm

I wonder what prompted this (from Orly's site):

Please, do not call judge Lamberth or DC courtHe will take his time and whenever he is ready, he will issue the final order whether to release or not to release the SS-5 to the never assigned Social Security xxx-xx-4425 (my redaction) that Obama is using. If you try to contact the judge, it might be considered an improper exparte contact and will only upset the judge.At this point all you can do, is wait for him and for the 9th circuit to issue a decision on the FOIA .

[edit]Redacshuns[/edit]

What does the 9th Circuit have to do with the FOIA decision? Am I missing something? Perhaps she has realized her poor handling of the judge and his clerks and is just getting her appeals ready.

The FOIA case is before Judge Lamberth.[edit]Oops. Just realized what you were referring to. My bad.[/edit]

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 21503
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby SueDB » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:19 pm

I wonder what prompted this (from Orly's site):

Please, do not call judge Lamberth or DC courtHe will take his time and whenever he is ready, he will issue the final order whether to release or not to release the SS-5 to the never assigned Social Security xxx-xx-4425 (my redaction) that Obama is using. If you try to contact the judge, it might be considered an improper exparte contact and will only upset the judge.At this point all you can do, is wait for him and for the 9th circuit to issue a decision on the FOIA .

[edit]Redacshuns[/edit]

What does the 9th Circuit have to do with the FOIA decision? Am I missing something? Perhaps she has realized her poor handling of the judge and his clerks and is just getting her appeals ready.

The FOIA case is before Judge Lamberth.

Love it - she gets lambasted for not redacting the SS correctly in the legal documents, then posts the entire number on her web page. She sure doesn't behave like $20K made a difference. Heck, she is just mangling a couple of root canals away from making up the cash.
You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures.
You can follow your instincts, which'll probably get you in trouble.
Or... you can follow the money - The Two Jakes -

fava
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:51 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby fava » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:28 pm

So if a judge orders a document be sealed, and the plaintiff publishes that sealed document (or one just like it), can the plaintiff be found in contempt of court for failing to maintain the seal?

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15691
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby TollandRCR » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:32 pm

Similarly, I was involved in a transaction with Hong Kong principals and you had to have a little red dot applied to certain documents to be filed with their equivalent of a state Secretary of State (at least that is what their lawyers told us).

In the days preceding the night of massacre in Tienanmen Square, [link]CNN broadcast live from Beijing,http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-02/world/cnn.tiananmen.coverage_1_tiananmen-square-gorbachev-s-visit-chinese-leadership?_s=PM:WORLD[/link]. The cable channel had been awarded permission to use its own satellite dish for live broadcasts. Bernard Shaw was usually the reporter/host. As the killing machines of the government were being made ready to move in, the government ordered CNN to shut down its broadcasts. A functionary of the ministry of foreign affairs formally delivered the written order on live television. Acting with the advice of a China expert, the station chief and Shaw refused to accept it on the grounds that it was not official -- there was no "chop," i.e., no red wax official seal. The functionary went back to the ministry, and CNN broadcast for a few hours more. I have often wondered why a government that was about to kill students and workers in cold blood would be so concerned about the niceties of legal papers. Everyone has seen the famous video of the tank man and the line of PLA tanks. Few have seen what those tanks went on to do that night. The photograph below perhaps should only be imagined as a crushed bicycle rather than viewed for what it is; it is horror in the extreme.[sekrit][attachment=0]Tiananmen bicycle.png[/attachment][/sekrit]

User avatar
everalm
Posts: 1773
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:45 am

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby everalm » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:34 pm

IANAL but based on the actual lawyers discussions I believe the following is correct, real lawyers feel free to giggle and point..In this case filing documents under seal is only applicable to those documents presented to the court and which will be a part of the public record. WHEN Mad Ole Orly posts on her web site she is not violating the seal of the court as her we postings are not part of the record of the court.(I am not including where she adds screenshots of her House O' Malware as part of a court filing)Think of it in the same way as Birfoons keep squealing that the Hawai'I DOH no longer have any need to maintain privacy of the Presidents birth certificate after the President released a copy to the media.What HE has done in a seperate arena has no impact on the DOH and what they are obliged to follow.(edited to add a caveat)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15692
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby bob » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:44 pm

In this case filing documents under seal is only applicable to those documents presented to the court and which will be a part of the public record. WHEN Mad Ole Orly posts on her web site she is not violating the seal of the court as her we postings are not part of the record of the court.

I would add that the court would first have to order Taitz to not publicly disclose what was filed under seal.

User avatar
BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby BFB » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:48 pm

Here we go again (from Orly's site):

Attn clerk of the court,Dear sir/mdmPer 07.21.2011 order by Judge Lamberth, (see attached) plaintiff is resubmitting attached Opposition and memorandum in opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment by the Defendant. Plaintiff redacted the first five digits in the number xxx-xx-4425 instead of redacting the last four digits per order, even though according to the exhibit 2 of the motion, this number was not assigned by the Social Security administration and does not represent a valid SSA number at all. Please, docket this attached Motion as soon as possible, since Judge Lamberth allowed only 14 days.

-xx

GreatGrey
Posts: 6590
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby GreatGrey » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:50 pm

I have often wondered why a government that was about to kill students and workers in cold blood would be so concerned about the niceties of legal papers.

Because it is procedure.

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 830
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby woodworker » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:56 pm

Here we go again (from Orly's site):

Attn clerk of the court,Dear sir/mdmPer 07.21.2011 order by Judge Lamberth, (see attached) plaintiff is resubmitting attached Opposition and memorandum in opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment by the Defendant. Plaintiff redacted the first five digits in the number xxx-xx-4425 instead of redacting the last four digits per order, even though according to the exhibit 2 of the motion, this number was not assigned by the Social Security administration and does not represent a valid SSA number at all. Please, docket this attached Motion as soon as possible, since Judge Lamberth allowed only 14 days.

-xx

So, despite the Judge warning her about her bullshit, she decides to poke him in the chest and tell him that he doesn't know what he is talking about by arguing in her cover letter that the redaction should not have been required because " even though according to the exhibit 2 of the motion, this number was not assigned by the Social Security administration and does not represent a valid SSA number at all." The govt attorneys won't have to ask for sanctions, she just did. And I think Judge Lambreth is going to give her what she asked for.Over/under $10K.
My avatar is a likeness of my bestest puppy "Bruin." There is no truth to the rumor, despite what Geritol says, that Bruin and I are twins.

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 6860
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a collaborative facility run by the U.S. And Canada
Contact:

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby Kriselda Gray » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:59 pm

Sorry I missed your ironicalness. Many times Fogbowers suggest, with all sincerity, that someone contact somebody about something.But unless the somebody is a birther, I assume folks already know what they are doing and don't need my help. :D

I do think there are times when it might be appropriate for ONE person to contact someone and give them a brief heads-up if we find out that Orly is planning to sic her minions on them (or otherwise harass them) - especially if they've not had any previous run-ins with her. Doing that is SIGNIFICANTLY different from scads of people calling someone (like judges, staffers at the DoH, etc.) - particularly someone who truly has no involvement in the situation (like the mother of that baby who was born and died around the time Obama was born) - to try and push them to do something or get information from them.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15691
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby TollandRCR » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:02 pm

I have often wondered why a government that was about to kill students and workers in cold blood would be so concerned about the niceties of legal papers.

Because it is procedure.

Yes, we saw some of that in Nazi Germany as well.

User avatar
ducktape
Posts: 5315
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:09 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby ducktape » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:04 pm

Here we go again ....

Wait -- didn't she already resubmit it? Wasn't the resubmitted version the one that was put under seal yesterday?





OMFG -- do you think she believes she has 14 days to get it right, with as many refilings as she needs to do that during that time?





And that wonderful non-sequitur to prove that SHE never makes a mistake ...


Plaintiff redacted [highlight=#ffffbf]the first five digits in the number xxx-xx-4425 instead of redacting the last four digits per order,[/highlight] [highlight=#ffff00]even though according to the exhibit 2 of the motion,[/highlight]this number was not assigned by the Social Security administration ...

I think she just insulted the judge directly, too.

User avatar
TexasFilly
Posts: 14585
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby TexasFilly » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:05 pm

I love the "since Judge Lamberth only allowed 14 days" comment Her freaking Response was due some time ago. She's lucky the judge bought her bullshit story about the second filing (well, he did until he saw it), or there would have been no 14 days extension, and she would be facing down an MSJ with no response. Which is what I hope the Judge does here: don't go wobby on me Royce! :D

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 21503
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby SueDB » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:06 pm

I have often wondered why a government that was about to kill students and workers in cold blood would be so concerned about the niceties of legal papers.

Because it is procedure.

Yes, we saw some of that in Nazi Germany as well.

It makes it easier to do dastardly things as having the seal means that someone else is definitely taking responsibility for the order. It is the nature of their type of government.
You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures.
You can follow your instincts, which'll probably get you in trouble.
Or... you can follow the money - The Two Jakes -

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 12370
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby Addie » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:07 pm

$5000

Over/under $10K.

Shut up! We can't hear the mimes! -Jacques Prévert, Les Enfants du Paradis

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 18398
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC\
Contact:

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby Foggy » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:08 pm

The Orange County Register is one of the most right-wing rags in this great nation."O.C. birthplace lawyer chastised by judge""Birthplace" lawyer? Too askeered to write "BIRTHER" are ya?
"The only thing more dangerous than an idea is a belief. And by dangerous I don't mean thought-provoking. I mean: might get people killed." - Sarah Vowell

User avatar
TexasFilly
Posts: 14585
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby TexasFilly » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:10 pm

The Orange County Register is one of the most right-wing rags in this great nation."O.C. birthplace lawyer chastised by judge""Birthplace" lawyer? Too askeered to write "BIRTHER" are ya?

I noticed that too. Also. I guess that makes Orly ineligible for the Dumbit...

fava
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:51 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby fava » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:11 pm

Over/under $10K.

$0 which is under.But.This jab makes it more likely that there will be sanctions later.

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 830
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby woodworker » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:22 pm

I love the "since Judge Lamberth only allowed 14 days" comment Her freaking Response was due some time ago. She's lucky the judge bought her bullshit story about the second filing (well, he did until he saw it), or there would have been no 14 days extension, and she would be facing down an MSJ with no response. Which is what I hope the Judge does here: don't go wobby on me Royce! :D

I agree, but Orly will argue that she didn't understand it to mean "one" filing so this is going to call for a "Motion for Clarification."
My avatar is a likeness of my bestest puppy "Bruin." There is no truth to the rumor, despite what Geritol says, that Bruin and I are twins.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31098
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:25 pm

I love the "since Judge Lamberth only allowed 14 days" comment Her freaking Response was due some time ago. She's lucky the judge bought her bullshit story about the second filing (well, he did until he saw it), or there would have been no 14 days extension, and she would be facing down an MSJ with no response. Which is what I hope the Judge does here: don't go wobby on me Royce! :D

I agree, but Orly will argue that she didn't understand it to mean "one" filing so this is going to call for a "Motion for Clarification."

{SMILIES_PATH}/pray.gif

User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5086
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby jtmunkus » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:30 pm

Here we go again ....

Wait -- didn't she already resubmit it? Wasn't the resubmitted version the one that was put under seal yesterday?





OMFG -- do you think she believes she has 14 days to get it right, with as many refilings as she needs to do that during that time?





And that wonderful non-sequitur to prove that SHE never makes a mistake ...


Plaintiff redacted [highlight=#ffffbf]the first five digits in the number xxx-xx-4425 instead of redacting the last four digits per order,[/highlight] [highlight=#ffff00]even though according to the exhibit 2 of the motion,[/highlight]this number was not assigned by the Social Security administration ...

I think she just insulted the judge directly, too.

She might as well have just written three words:





"Please sanction me."


Return to “Orly Taitz”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest