Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:07 pm

I believe we are in agreement then? Those who have studied Constitutional law in a law school curriculum and/or those with law degrees who claim status as a Constitutional lawyer would know this stuff?





Hmm, it's almost as if Orly were nothing more than a layman pretending to be a lawyer.


Well, we're 90% in agreement, I'd say. Anyone who studied Con Law in law school would at least have been exposed to this stuff. However, they might not remember it. I think, though, that they would at least know that the use of "embarrass" and its derivatives as used to describe the PQD is not the normal English use, and that they should look it up. I'll note that not just Brennan in Baker used the term this way, but Rehnquist, White and Burger were also fond of this use.





There are probably other examples, but when debating whether or not to add language guaranteeing jury trial in civil trials in the text of the Constitution, Pinckney argued that the inclusion of such language would be "pregnant with embarrassments." The measure went down to defeat, though it was resurrected in nearly identical language in the Seventh Amendment. The same criticism that applied to including the language in the body of the Constitution--that is, that it was virtually impossible to distinguish in any principled manner between what at common law would guarantee a right to a jury trial and what was equitable and could be decided solely by a judge--applied equally to the Seventh Amendment, and indeed, continues to cause headaches or, shall I say, "embarrassments," to this day.

cornet67
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:18 am

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby cornet67 » Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:43 pm

My excuse is that Baker v. Carr was decided in 1962 and even though I got an A in constitutional law, that was in 1948. And, my whole career was pretty much limited to securities and corporate law, involving little or no litigation or briefing. But I still managed to recognize the difference in the way the military judge used the phrase in the Lakin case!The worst part, of course, is the continued misuse of the legal term by the birther press and the various wingnuts even after their error was specifically pointed out to them.

User avatar
MRich
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:07 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby MRich » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:48 pm

Regardless, I wish the judge had not used the word "embarrassment." It has led to her being misquoted by so many birthers saying that the judge said releasing President Obama's records would lead to his embarrassment. Because of the lawyers here at Fogbow I know the other definition, but I'll bet 99% of population doesn't.

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 6998
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby raicha » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:15 pm

Regardless, I wish the judge had not used the word "embarrassment." It has led to her being misquoted by so many birthers saying that the judge said releasing President Obama's records would lead to his embarrassment. Because of the lawyers here at Fogbow I know the other definition, but I'll bet 99% of population doesn't.

It was used precisely because it is a legal term right out of Baker v. Carr. Judges have to state the law. A lot of the law is misunderstood by 99% of the population. That's why there are law schools. ;)

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8406
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby verbalobe » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:15 pm

Regardless, I wish the judge had not used the word "embarrassment." It has led to her being misquoted by so many birthers saying that the judge said releasing President Obama's records would lead to his embarrassment. Because of the lawyers here at Fogbow I know the other definition, but I'll bet 99% of population doesn't.

I know that saying "I wish" is not the same as saying "she should not have." But all the same, I disagree. Judge Lind was working within a relatively vast (relative to birtherlaw), well-trodden area of Constitutional law, with no special reason to modify the usual terms of art for a tiny audience of whackjobs, who would have seized on any other phrase they could have to reinforce their utterly incorrect ideas.





To use the word as she did merely ensured that all similarly educated people would know precisely what she meant, and what series of caselaw she was relying on. That kind of care, precision, and professionalism is to be lauded.





The very fact that, even after we IANAL-types all understood its meaning, we have a bit of trouble explaining it to others in single synonyms, is a testament to the fact that it is an important term of art, for which no simple substitute will do.

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 6709
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby Butterfly Bilderberg » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:37 pm

BIG BIG BIG mistake to suggest to the Court that Jill Nagamine violated Bar rules.





First, conspicuously absent is any citation to the rule(s) allegedly violated. If there were such a rule, it would have cited. There simply is no Rule of Professional Responsibility that requires an attorney to return phone calls, especially calls seeking to confirm travel arrangements. Stupid to try to bluff the judge, who is very familiar not only with the local rules but also with local customs.





Second, Orly is playing in Hawaii's sand box. It is not wise to poop in it. Talking smack about a well respected state attorney is doing just that.





Otherwise, it's just the same old same old. No effort to actually REPLY to the AG's arguments.

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 9001
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby Plutodog » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:12 pm

I keep reading things like this with hope that a court will finally put Orly in her place. {SMILIES_PATH}/pray.gif
We are not sinners. We are not abominations. We were not born broken, and we do not need salvation. We have embraced our right to think beyond the boundaries of religion. We are living and loving our lives free from faith. -- Sarah Morehead

User avatar
TexasFilly
Posts: 14658
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby TexasFilly » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:29 pm

Well, whodathunkit? Taitz is preparing to file a Reply to the Defendant's Opposition to her Motion for Reconsideration! NO HELPING ORLY FOLKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





Taitz v Astrue draft of reply to opposition to motion for reconsideration





Posted on | September 28, 2011 | No Comments





PDF and docx versions below





Draft to reply to opposition











Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ pro se





29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100





Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688





Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603





E-Mail: [/break1]com]dr_taitz@yahoo.com, [/break1]taitz@gmail.com]orly.taitz@gmail.com











UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT





FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA





Dr. Orly Taitz, in pro se ) Hon. Royce C. Lamberth





)





Plaintiff, )





) Case No. 11-cv-00402





v. )





) Motion for Reconsideration





Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the )





Social Security Administration, )





) [Request for Oral argument





) to be held within 20 days]





)





Respondent . )





_________________________________)





Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (Hereinafter “Taitz”) submits this reply to opposition to motion for reconsideration and respectfully requests emergency hearing and oral argument on the merits within 20 days, based on newly discovered information and based on an assertion of clear error and manifest injustice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). This motion is based on the instant Memorandum of points and authorities, exhibits herein, and any matters present at oral argument.





MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES





Opposition by the defendant, Commissioner of Social Security Michael Astrue did not oppose any substantive points of the motion for reconsideration and the motion should be considered unopposed on the merits. In case the court believes, that the substantive points were addressed, the Plaintiff provides the following argument in reply to opposition and in support for motion for reconsideration.





[highlight]EMERGENCY CITUATION[/highlight]





Defendant Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security administration through his attorneys, Department of Justice-US Attorneys’ office, is claiming that the fact that Barack Obama, an individual without a valid social security number according to e-verify, is occupying the position of the US president and Commander in Chief, does not represent an emergency situation and therefore there should not be a reconsideration.





In response Plaintiff herein is using Your Honors’ own lexicon: “They are either toying with the nation or showing their stupidity”.





Taitz provided irrefutable evidence, showing that Barack Hussein Obama has used in his tax returns and his selective service a Connecticut Social security number XXX-XX-XXXX [redacted by TF], which was never assigned to him according to E-verify. Even without e-verify, fraud is evident, as the number starts with 042, a number sequence assigned to the state of CT, where Obama never resided. Can our Commissioner of Social Security and our Department of Justice led by Eric Holder be so completely brain dead to suggest, that having a criminal with a stolen social security number and a forged birth certificate and an unknown allegiance does not represent an emergency?


[highlight]For Michael Astrue, a licensed attorney, Commissioner of Social Security Administration; for the US attorneys, representing him, to even suggest, that there is no “legitimate public interest” in knowing whether we have a criminal in the White House with a fraudulently obtained Social Security number, is simply unthinkable, it represents a total lack of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, that they were sworn to protect. This behavior by the Commissioner of the Social Security administration and US attorneys representing him, is simply criminal, it simply amounts to obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting Social Security fraud and possibly treason against the United States of America. If this is not an emergency, what is, if there is no public interest in knowing, whether we have a criminal in the White House, when is there a public interest[/highlight]? Can there be a more dire emergency? We have a breach of the national security in the highest office in the land, and our Department of Justice does not grasp that this is an emergency?





It is hard to believe that we have such an unprecedented stupidity, therefore we are left to deduct, that we have an unprecedented level of corruption in all three brunches of our government, which allows this crime to go on for nearly three years. Specifically because it is the highest level of emergency, we need Your Honor to address the evidence and reconsider the motion for summary judgment.

But, that's not all:





Newly available evidence





Defendant claims, that the Plaintiff fails to identify newly available evidence. Defendant claims, that the information provided by Taitz was received by her earlier and was not submitted timely. Clearly the department of Justice suffers from a case of collective dyslexia or does not understand simple English.





****





Only recently Taitz received an affidavit from Mr. Papa, attesting to this information, as well as affidavit from Linda Jordan. None of this information was available to Plaintiff before, there were no latches and she had no reason to believe that this information could be available. Information of Barack Obama’s use of Connecticut social security number XXX-XX-XXXX [again} in his tax returns, is a newly discovered evidence for the Plaintiff, which was not available to her before.

There's more of the brilliance but I'm askeered of raicha, so...maybe someone can Scrib'd this.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31536
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:32 pm

-xx

User avatar
TexasFilly
Posts: 14658
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby TexasFilly » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:36 pm

-xx

Yup, she includes the stories of "Mrs. Taitz goes to Washington", speaks of splitting babies in half, etc! This is the most brilliant thing she's ever written! She manages to get all of the evidence in one motion. Checkmate.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31536
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:37 pm

:-#

User avatar
Jez
Posts: 2028
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: Out there, Somewhere...

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby Jez » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:39 pm

Ummm.. here is a very simple (and probably insanely stupid) IANAL question... Does one have to file a response to everything that the opposition files?
I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers.

~Khalil Gibran

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 21769
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby SueDB » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:40 pm

-xx

Yup, she includes the stories of "Mrs. Taitz goes to Washington", speaks of splitting babies in half, etc! This is the most brilliant thing she's ever written! She manages to get all of the evidence in one motion. Checkmate.

All that work for a DENIED.....ho hum -xx -xx
"Scientific Research: A whole lotta tedious attention to detail followed
by a lovely payoff too esoteric for your friends to understand."
anon--

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 8393
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby Whatever4 » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:48 pm

File Orly File! -xx

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 18651
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Contact:

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby Foggy » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:49 pm

...maybe someone can Scrib'd this.

[/break1]scribd.com/doc/66694148]http://www.scribd.com/doc/66694148Until Jack Ryan surfaces ...
Show me, show me, show me how you do that trick! The one that makes me scream, she said.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:52 pm

Ummm.. here is a very simple (and probably insanely stupid) IANAL question... Does one have to file a response to everything that the opposition files?

No, and in this case, the defense would be better off ignoring this. After all, it's so brilliant that anything they could file in response would just look foolish, and would not forestall their doom. :-

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby bob » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:54 pm

Does one have to file a response to everything that the opposition files?

The usual filing format: A filing, an opposition, and a reply.





Surreplies (replies to replies) are not allowed without the court's permission.





Many courts have a rule that says the failure to file an opposition is a concession that the original filing is meritorious. So there's an incentive to file an opposition. The enforcement of that rule varies, as no court is going to grant something that is so plainly wrong and not dignified with a response.





Replies are optional, but are nonetheless often filed. Good replies actually, well, reply to the opposition; in reality, most replies just regurgitate the original filing, and are useless.








Excessive filings (and oppositions) are sometimes used for tactical reasons: like delay, or burying your opponent in paper. (No one ever admits they're doing this, of course.)





For firms, there is often another reason for filing replies (and oppositions, sometimes): money. If you can bill the client for some easy money, they do it.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 18651
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Contact:

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby Foggy » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:18 pm

Oh, this one's a lulu all right. :shock:Or'ly's going to be appointed a Special Master "to investigate not only the fraud by Obama, but also massive SSA fraud in general and massive elections fraud, which is related to the SSA fraud."She's going to put MILLIONS of us in prison! :-({|=
Show me, show me, show me how you do that trick! The one that makes me scream, she said.

User avatar
TexasFilly
Posts: 14658
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby TexasFilly » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:23 pm

Oh, this one's a lulu all right. :shock:Or'ly's going to be appointed a Special Master "to investigate not only the fraud by Obama, but also massive SSA fraud in general and massive elections fraud, which is related to the SSA fraud."She's going to put MILLIONS of us in prison! :-({|=

[sekrit]Good thing I have a passport (with my fake BC and SSN!). If I disappear, you'll know what happened. I ain't waiting around to be arrested. As Sternie says: SUCKERS! :P[/sekrit]

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 6998
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby raicha » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:32 pm

we have an unprecedented level of corruption in all three [highlight=#ffff00]brunches[/highlight] of our government

I lol'd. :lol:

User avatar
TexasFilly
Posts: 14658
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby TexasFilly » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:35 pm

we have an unprecedented level of corruption in all three [highlight=#ffff00]brunches[/highlight] of our government

I lol'd. :lol:

[hidden]No helping! [-X *ducks*[/hidden]

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby bob » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:43 pm

Taitz":2z1bwdpz">

It is hard to believe that we have such an unprecedented stupidity, therefore we are left to deduct, that we have an unprecedented level of corruption in all three brunches of our government, which allows this crime to go on for nearly three years.[...]In its order this court erroneously stated, that individuals can check only their own selective service registration. This was a clear error of fact.[...]If this court is serious about upholding the law and the Constitution and providing expedient and in-depth address to the issues raised...[...]Can Your Honor look these people in the eyes and with a straight face tell them, that they have no right to know, that there is “no legitimate public interest” in verifying legitimacy of this person for the position of the U.S. president? Can Your Honor tell them, that Obama’s right to privacy in a fraudulently obtained Social Security number from a state, where he never resided, which is invalid per e-verify, outweighs the right of all of these people to know?[...]It is unthinkable to believe that we can have such an unprecedented level of corruption in all three branches of our government, that this court would rule, that this information is not of exigent nature and that the release of a redacted SS-5 application for this SSN is not warranted

-xx

obot 10241408971650
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:25 pm

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby obot 10241408971650 » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:46 pm

She includes the vaunted 57 states conspiracy theory. -xx

User avatar
Clairez
Posts: 883
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:08 am

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby Clairez » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:48 pm

Oh. My. God!! really! really?And also she really, really didn't care for the judge hinting that she was stupid. =))Edited of anything that says anything so I don't get evil looks or get yelled at. ?(

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 12727
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Postby Addie » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:50 pm

Golly gee, I just love this one -xx
Shut up! We can't hear the mimes! -Jacques Prévert, Les Enfants du Paradis


Return to “Orly Taitz”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mr. Gneiss and 1 guest