Taitz v. Astrue - FOIA action

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23571

MsDaisy wrote:

Orly just posted her “tracking conformation” and says:

Quote:

“MY REQUEST FOR DEFAULT IN TAITZ V ASTRUE WAS RECEIVED IN DC AND PROCESSED. DEMAND POSTING THE DEFAULT ON THE DOCKET”

Does that mean she thinks that’s all there is to it, and now she wins a default judgment?

No, I think it means she knows it was received, and as of an hour or so ago when I checked, it's not docketed, so there must be something nefarious going on with Judge Lamberth and/or his clerks.

I suspect, based on the "let this be filed" notes from the judge on many of her documents, that they are sent to him for review prior to docketing... not sure, just sayin'.

If it gets docketed, so what? It's not going to be granted. One, it's not timely, due to the service, and two, she wouldn't get it if it was. She's so stooopit.

bob · **Posted:** Wed May 18, 2011 11:23 am

Quote:

Chum Lee wrote:

I thought that United States defendants have 60 days to answer a Complaint, not 30. That is in the FRCP. I could be wrong, it may actually be 90.

Also, have all three persons been served (Astrue, Holder, and the local US Attorney)?

Taitz wrote:

[highlight]FOIA has different guidelines[/highlight]. All have been served by April 3rd

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=20561#comments

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23571

bob wrote:

Quote:

Chum Lee wrote:

I thought that United States defendants have 60 days to answer a Complaint, not 30. That is in the FRCP. I could be wrong, it may actually be 90.

Also, have all three persons been served (Astrue, Holder, and the local US Attorney)?

Taitz wrote:

[highlight]FOIA has different guidelines[/highlight]. All have been served by April 3rd

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=20561#comments

Orlylaw is fascinating.

If they've all been served by April 3 (NOT) then why did she file a "Affidavit of Mailing" on 4/21, (and another earlier? In addition there is not one Return of Service filed (though she sez there is in her docket entries). :-k

Documents here

Docket...

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)

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

02/16/2011 2[RECAP] NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by ORLY TAITZ. Case related to Case No. 10-cv-151. (jf, ) (Entered: 02/22/2011)

04/08/2011 3[RECAP] AMENDED COMPLAINT against MICHAEL ASTRUE filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Exhibits)"Let this be filed" by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth.(rdj) Note: Portions of these exhibits are illegible in paper form and on ECF. (Entered: 04/11/2011)

04/08/2011 4[RECAP] AFFIDAVIT of Mailing by ORLY TAITZ. "Let this be filed, The Court notes mailing was sent to improper address for the U.S. Attorney, and time to respond doesn't run until U.S. Attorney is properly served." by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth.(rdj) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

04/08/2011 5[RECAP] RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 3/30/2011. (rdj) (Entered: 04/13/2011)

04/21/2011 6[RECAP] AFFIDAVIT of Mailing to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia with Summons and First Amended Complaint by ORLY TAITZ. (rdj) (Entered: 04/25/2011)

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10657

Well, well, look who's boarded Orly's crazy train on this case! It's none other than professional seditionist and imbecile, Sharon RonDUE:

Quote:

Orly Taitz: Default Judgment Due in Obama Social Security Number Case

30-DAY RESPONSE TIME HAS ELAPSED WITH NO ANSWER

by Sharon Rondeau

Is the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration hiding the fact that Obama is using a stolen social security number?

(May 18, 2011) — On May 13, 2011, Atty. Orly Taitz posted on her website that she had filed a request for a default judgment by the United States District Court in Washington, DC in her case against the Social Security Administration and its commissioner, Michael Astrue, regarding the SSA’s failure to release information. The request was made after a 30-day response period had elapsed [highlight]without comment[/highlight] :lol:

from the Social Security Administration.

There's the usual BS about Susan Daniels, blah, blah, and RonDUE haz a mad because she can't get any of the links at the SSA's web page to work. But RonDUE didn't write this little POS on her own, oh, no, she had some input from......Orly Taitz! Once again, Taitz resorts to asking folks to harass court personnel, and since that is also one of RonDUE's hobbies, she's happy to oblige, telling her readers:

Quote:

Atty. Taitz told The Post & Email that normally the clerks of the court post a request for default judgment such as the one she made on the docket, but that nothing has appeared so far. The telephone numbers where the clerks can be reached are 202-354-3080 and 202-354-3190.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/18/ ... mber-case/

One of these days Judge Lamberth might actually take the proper action against Taitz for abusing the court system, his court in particular, and his staff. Unless and until he does, this will never stop.

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 2:29 am

TexasFilly wrote:

One of these days Judge Lamberth might actually take the proper action against Taitz for abusing the court system, his court in particular, and his staff. Unless and until he does, this will never stop.

The link for the following is in the P&E article you linked.

Quote:

Judge Lamberth is also former Chairman of the Professional Ethics Committee of the Federal Bar Association. The Federal Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct for Federal Lawyers, finally approved in October 1990, were drafted by Judge Lamberth's Committee.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/lamberth
Orly's behavior will not change until she's required to change it (CA bar probation or multiple sanctions). Of course, the CA bar could make that a moot point by disbarring her.

bob · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 11:41 am

P&E wrote:

Taitz’s complaint mentions other social security numbers which she claims Obama has used, one of which she stated belonged to a woman named Lucille Ballantyne, who passed away in 1998. A reader of The Post & Email contacted us some time ago stating that he had located family members of Ballantyne and [highlight]had spoken with one of them[/highlight].

More harassment of innocent people.

bob · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 11:47 am

Quote:

Chum lee wrote:

Thanks! I did not know that about FOIA. I have never dealt with FOIA litigation. I have another question (my last one).

I am very confused about the dates. A Complaint was filed on 2/16/2011. You filed an Amended Complaint on 4/8/2011. That, to me, would cancel out the first Complaint the deadlines began anew. Now you stated everyone was served by 4/3/2011, but PACER seems to say otherwise. First, we both know that the First Amended Complaint could not have been served prior to its actual filing. Second, the Complaint needed to be reserved since it was served to the wrong address of the US Attorney (after 4/3/2011).

Also, I do not see any affidavit indicating service of the First Amended Complaint on Astrue on PACER.

So how is the US late in its response?

Taitz wrote:

I served them on March 24 th. Michael astrue got his papers on March 28th. US attorney got his April 3 rd. [highlight]He was supposed to file an answer by May3rd the latest[/highlight], he did not do that

Super Patriot wrote:

30 days does not appear in the Civil Rules, so why are you using it? All U.S. defendants have 60 days to answer.

Also, if the complaint wasn’t filed until April 8th, how could your service on March 24th have been valid? Where was the issued summons?

I think Judge Lambert is going to lose his patience with stunts like this.

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=20561#comments

verbalobe · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 11:52 am

bob wrote:

Quote:

Super Patriot wrote:

30 days does not appear in the Civil Rules, so why are you using it? All U.S. defendants have 60 days to answer.

Also, if the complaint wasn’t filed until April 8th, how could your service on March 24th have been valid? Where was the issued summons?

I think Judge Lambert is going to lose his patience with stunts like this.

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=20561#comments

If people keep helping her, eventually she will learn something.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
Nah.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10657

Joseph Robidoux III wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

One of these days Judge Lamberth might actually take the proper action against Taitz for abusing the court system, his court in particular, and his staff. Unless and until he does, this will never stop.

The link for the following is in the P&E article you linked.

Quote:

Judge Lamberth is also former Chairman of the Professional Ethics Committee of the Federal Bar Association. The Federal Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct for Federal Lawyers, finally approved in October 1990, were drafted by Judge Lamberth's Committee.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/lamberth
Orly's behavior will not change until she's required to change it (CA bar probation or multiple sanctions). Of course, the CA bar could make that a moot point by disbarring her.

Not exactly. Since Taitz is not licensed in DC and could never find a DC lawyer who was willing to sponsor her pro hac vice, she filed this mess pro se. Even on the off chance the CA Bar took any action against her, she could still file pro se (she's done that in Hornbeck as well). It will take a federal judge or two with a spine to put a stop to this. IMHO she should be declared a vexatious litigant in the federal districts where she's filed these frivolous actions.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 11:58 am

Taitz is posting that there is a special rule requiring the Government to answer FOIA complaints in 30 days.

Quote:

dr_taitz@yahoo.com
May 18th, 2011 @ 5:52 am

FOIA has different guidelines. All have been served by April 3rd

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=20561#comments :evil:

How did she come up with that?

Well, Rule 12(a)(2) & (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make it clear that it's 60 days. But Taft Law Skool taught Taitz to do her research with Teh Google. If you Google "FOIA DATE FILE ANSWER" this helpful article directed to Government witnesses -- but written in 1979 -- pops up:

Quote:

FOIA Update
Vol. I, No. 1
1979
Approaching the Bench

A requester may decide to go to court to compel the agency to release records. After a lawsuit has been filed, follow these basic guidelines:

Step 1: Usually your first information that a lawsuit has been filed will be when a government lawyer contacts you. When you are served with court papers from the requester, you should immediately identify the litigating attorney from the Department of Justice and the responsible in-house lawyer from your agency.

Step 2: Immediately find out from the litigator what court deadlines require your assistance and take the necessary steps. Usually, the first date will be for the answer to the complaint. In FOIA suits, the answer must be filed in court 30 days after the complaint was served on the U.S. Attorney's office in the district where the suit was filed. If the suit is a Privacy Act (PA) suit, then the answer must be filed within 60 days after the complaint was served.
. . .

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... google.com

Since it's on the Internet it must be true. And Taitz wouldn't possibly think the law has changed in the last 32 years.

The summons that was issued had 30 days written on it. Taitz claimed the number was inserted by the clerk. I tend to doubt it.

Adelante · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 12:03 pm

Harry C. Ballantyne's mom. He retired in 2001 as Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration. He laughed at Orly when she called him and hung up on her.

bob wrote:

P&E wrote:

Taitz’s complaint mentions other social security numbers which she claims Obama has used, one of which she stated belonged to a woman named Lucille Ballantyne, who passed away in 1998. A reader of The Post & Email contacted us some time ago stating that he had located family members of Ballantyne and [highlight]had spoken with one of them[/highlight].

More harassment of innocent people.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23571

Even if one assumed Orly was correct on FOIA about the 30 days (which of course she's not), time does not begin to run until the U.S. Attorney is served. According to the docket, the earliest that "might" have occurred was 4/21/11, so her motion would still be out of time and moot at this time.

She's a complete legal moron.

Edit: Edited a stoopit on my part.

BFB · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 1:49 pm

realist wrote:

Even if one assumed Orly was correct on FOIA about the 30 days (which of course she's not), time does not begin to run until the U.S. Attorney is served. According to the docket, the earliest that "might" have occurred was 4/21/11, so her motion would still be out of time and moot at this time.

She's a complete legalmoron.

FIFY

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 2:32 pm

TexasFilly wrote:

Not exactly. Since Taitz is not licensed in DC and could never find a DC lawyer who was willing to sponsor her pro hac vice, she filed this mess pro se. Even on the off chance the CA Bar took any action against her, she could still file pro se (she's done that in Hornbeck as well). It will take a federal judge or two with a spine to put a stop to this. IMHO she should be declared a vexatious litigant in the federal districts where she's filed these frivolous actions.

Bummer. It appears there is only one of those and he's in Georgia.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10657

I've heard that some tried to post at RonDUE's latest POS article about this case about, you know, silly stuff like what the FRCP say, but of course the Professional Seditionist/Professional Imbecile won't post verifiable facts. But she did let this one through from one of her fans:

Quote:

ObamaRelease YourRecords says:
Thursday, May 19, 2011 at 2:25 PM

I support Atty. Taitz 100% but she didn’t properly serve the US Attorney in the above case.

She sent it to the wrong address. That is why there was no response.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52771307/TAIT ... 146770-4-0

How long before Lady Liberty waltzes back in and tells him/her they are wrong? Cuz Orly is an expert at perfecting service, everyone knows that!

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 3:54 pm

Um. Uh. According to 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a)(4)(C) the agency is required to file an answer within 30 days unless the court grants an extension. That means Monday the 23rd is the due date since the 30th day falls on a Saturday.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 4:43 pm

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Um. Uh. According to 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a)(4)(C) the agency is required to file an answer within 30 days unless the court grants an extension. That means Monday the 23rd is the due date since the 30th day falls on a Saturday.

Quote:

(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the defendant shall serve an answer or otherwise plead to any complaint made under this subsection within thirty days after service upon the defendant of the pleading in which such complaint is made, unless the court otherwise directs for good cause shown.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10657

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Um. Uh. According to 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a)(4)(C) the agency is required to file an answer within 30 days unless the court grants an extension. That means Monday the 23rd is the due date since the 30th day falls on a Saturday.

Do you have to properly serve the agency? ;;)

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 5:34 pm

TexasFilly wrote:

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Um. Uh. According to 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a)(4)(C) the agency is required to file an answer within 30 days unless the court grants an extension. That means Monday the 23rd is the due date since the 30th day falls on a Saturday.

Do you have to properly serve the agency? ;;)

Of course!!!

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 5:35 pm

Has she properly served the agency? Of course not.

At least, that's what Judge Lamberth thinks and his opinions are the only ones that count right now.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23571

realist wrote:

bob wrote:

Quote:

Chum Lee wrote:

I thought that United States defendants have 60 days to answer a Complaint, not 30. That is in the FRCP. I could be wrong, it may actually be 90.

Also, have all three persons been served (Astrue, Holder, and the local US Attorney)?

Taitz wrote:

[highlight]FOIA has different guidelines[/highlight]. All have been served by April 3rd

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=20561#comments

[highlight]Orlylaw is fascinating.

If they've all been served by April 3 (NOT) then why did she file a "Affidavit of Mailing" on 4/21, (and another earlier? In addition there is not one Return of Service filed (though she sez there is in her docket entries).[/highlight] :-k

Documents here

Docket...

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)

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

02/16/2011 2[RECAP] NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by ORLY TAITZ. Case related to Case No. 10-cv-151. (jf, ) (Entered: 02/22/2011)

04/08/2011 3[RECAP] AMENDED COMPLAINT against MICHAEL ASTRUE filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Exhibits)"Let this be filed" by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth.(rdj) Note: Portions of these exhibits are illegible in paper form and on ECF. (Entered: 04/11/2011)

04/08/2011 4[RECAP] AFFIDAVIT of Mailing by ORLY TAITZ. "Let this be filed, The Court notes mailing was sent to improper address for the U.S. Attorney, and time to respond doesn't run until U.S. Attorney is properly served." by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth.(rdj) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

04/08/2011 5[RECAP] RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 3/30/2011. (rdj) (Entered: 04/13/2011)

04/21/2011 6[RECAP] AFFIDAVIT of Mailing to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia with Summons and First Amended Complaint by ORLY TAITZ. (rdj) (Entered: 04/25/2011)

AHEM!!!! Based on my non-law skool degree I had posted the above.

Well, guess what...

Orly law was wrong again... ya gots to prove you've served someone. Perhaps Her Stupidness will learn that in a few decades.

NEW DOCKET ENTRY... (It's funny... ya gotta see the actual document)

Quote:

05/17/11 7 http://www.scribd.com/doc/55845000/TAIT ... 146770-7-0 AFFIDAVIT FOR DEFAULT by ORLY TAITZ. "Let this be filed. Request DENIED. No proof of service has been filed ; only proof of mailing." by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth(rdj) (Entered: 05/19/2011)

link shortly

Edit: Trying to fix the link... in the meantime, just copy and paste. Well, it's not purdy, but it works.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10657

Can't wait for the link!

Oh, I see it, gotta cut and paste!

bob · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 6:10 pm

"No proof of service has been filed; only proof of mailing" will both confuse and outrage Tatiz!

Litlebritdifrnt2 · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 6:45 pm

Ouch wine just came through my nose! =))

It's that "filing" and "service" thingy again that gets Orly all confuzzled and then there's the "mailing" and "receipt" thingy too. Why is this lawyering thingy so hard!

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

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 6:58 pm

Assuming that the mailroom for the United States Attorney signed for the FAC on April 25, the earliest possible delivery date following the weekend of April 23-24, the Commissioner's answer or more likely motion to dismiss is due no earlier than May 25.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Taitz v. Astrue - FOIA action

Who is online