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

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23548

Orly's appeal of Taitz v Astrue has been docketed.

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit

Quote:

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 Due
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

Quote:

10/31/2011 US CIVIL CASE docketed. [11-5304]

10/31/2011 Open Document NOTICE OF APPEAL filed [1339114] by Orly Taitz seeking review of a decision by the U.S. District Court in 1:11-cv-00402-RCL. Assigned USCA Case Number [11-5304]

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3496

Nice job redacting the SSN, Porly. Your buddy Royce won't mind.

-xx

Mr. Gneiss · **Joined:** Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:37 am **Posts:** 566

Well, I hope Judge Lamberth has a good belly laugh with his clerks when he reads Orly's proposed order!

I guess that Orly must think that she is in a criminal court. Judge Lamberth can stay his final order 'cause it is just like a person convicted in criminal court being granted bail while the verdict is appealed. What a maroon. =))

Highlands · **Posted:** Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:58 pm

I LOVE the list of people who Orly carbon copied this Pile o' Fail too.

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:11 pm

One of Orly's cc's has actually moved on to a new job in a different organisation but I'd better not say which one in case Orly just alters the address and continues to deluge him or her with her POS.

esseff44 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:18 pm

She left out the parts about how if he doesn't grant her what she wants, he is a criminal who is a part of the grand conspiracy to cover up for the Usurper and he is making a laughing stock of The Rule of Law. This is much too tame to impress the judge unlike the language she used for her Fuddy case in HI.

I just wish Judge Lamberth would deal with it promptly so she can get on to appealing it. She's is obsessed with keeping her spinning plates in the air. As soon as one breaks, she flips up another. As long as she has cases on a docket somewhere or a hearing that may or may not happy, that is what matters to her and her FM's.

bob · **Posted:** Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:22 pm

esseff44 wrote:

I just wish Judge Lamberth would deal with it promptly so she can get on to appealing it.

That the DC district court sent it to the DC circuit court indicates that it has been "dealt" with, i.e., ignored.

Paul Pieniezny · **Posted:** Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:34 am

Highlands wrote:

I LOVE the list of people who Orly carbon copied this Pile o' Fail too.

And so you made me look at that poupee de boeuf (sorry, Squeeks, for stealing your copyright). If Orly is really a member of the Criminal Bar in The Hague, why was she never told that the web address and the telephone numbers were changed? Let's hope the telephone numbers she is quoting were redistributed to supporters of Geert Wilders. :mrgreen:

Since I understand we do not help Orly, I am not giving out the real addresses or even how I found them. Anyone interested who cannot find them, please PM.

mimi · **Posted:** Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:40 am

jtmunkus wrote:

Nice job redacting the SSN, Porly. Your buddy Royce won't mind.

-xx

I don't think he will mind. Doesn't seem like it. I'm beginning to believe that Orlylaw is the law of the land.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

mimi wrote:

jtmunkus wrote:

Nice job redacting the SSN, Porly. Your buddy Royce won't mind.

-xx

I don't think he will mind. Doesn't seem like it. I'm beginning to believe that Orlylaw is the law of the land.

The court clerks might catch it, but Judge Lamberth won't. The processing of a notice of appeal is purely ministerial. The judge never sees it.

raicha · **Posted:** Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:18 am

deleted

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23548

Pay up!!

New Docket Entries...

Quote:

11/07/2011 Open Document CLERK'S ORDER filed [1340397] directing party to file motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis or payment of docketing fee. APPELLANT payment of docketing fee or motion to proceed IFP in district court due 12/07/2011, Failure to respond shall result in dismissal of the case for lack of prosecution; The Clerk is directed to send this order to appellant by certified mail, return receipt requested and by 1st class mail. [11-5304]

11/07/2011 FIRST CLASS MAIL SENT [1340398] of order [1340397-2] to appellant [11-5304]

11/07/2011 CERTIFIED MAIL SENT [1340409] with return receipt requested [Receipt No.7007 0710 0004 7191 2682] of order [1340397-2]. Certified Mail Receipt due 12/07/2011 from Orly Taitz. [11-5304]

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:58 pm

I'm not certain if it's been covered here, but, how is eligibility for IFP determined? Does she just have to file a form?

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:02 pm

The form was included in the notice to Orly (click the link).

GreatGrey · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:05 pm

Joseph Robidoux III wrote:

The form was included in the notice to Orly (click the link).

That's a lot more detailed than the one Merooni did in McHenry County.

bob · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:05 pm

DaveMuckey wrote:

I'm not certain if it's been covered here, but, how is eligibility for IFP determined? Does she just have to file a form?

IFP is generally determined by filing out a form under penalty of perjury. (An example.)

Unlike most birthers, Taitz has never requested IFP; she pays the fees.*

* Except for the times she claims fees aren't required, like filing multiple appeals in the same case, etc.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23548

I saw on Orly's site (and somewhere here) that Orly had paid the fees for the Ruemmler and Astrue appeals. There is no indication of the docket of such, but there is this little funny in Taitz v Ruemmler appeal docket.

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

11/09/2011 Open Document CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT [1341077] RECEIVED from unreadable, assumed to be Orly Taitz [signed for on 11/07/2011] for order [1340395-2] sent to Appellant Orly Taitz [11-5306]

verbalobe · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:33 am

realist wrote:

I saw on Orly's site (and somewhere here) that Orly had paid the fees for the Ruemmler and Astrue appeals. There is no indication of the docket of such, but there is this little funny in Taitz v Ruemmler appeal docket.

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

11/09/2011 Open Document CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT [1341077] RECEIVED from unreadable, assumed to be Orly Taitz [signed for on 11/07/2011] for order [1340395-2] sent to Appellant Orly Taitz [11-5306]

Bless her heart.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9356

realist wrote:

I saw on Orly's site (and somewhere here) that Orly had paid the fees for the Ruemmler and Astrue appeals. There is no indication of the docket of such, but there is this little funny in Taitz v Ruemmler appeal docket.

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

11/09/2011 Open Document CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT [1341077] RECEIVED from unreadable, assumed to be Orly Taitz [signed for on 11/07/2011] for order [1340395-2] sent to Appellant Orly Taitz [11-5306]

I can imagine that discussion over the water cooler between the clerks. "Hey, we got a pile of completely unreadable gibberish. What do we do with this?" "Who's it from?" "We can't tell." "Who but Orly Taitz could possibly be that incompetent?" "Yeah, we assume she's the culprit." "So, what do we put on the docket?" "This."

Quote:

11/09/2011 Open Document CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT [1341077] RECEIVED from unreadable, assumed to be that fucking idiot Orly Taitz [signed for on 11/07/2011] for order [1340395-2] sent to Appellant Orly Taitz [11-5306]

The red text is to be inferred by the reader.

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3496

Orly Taitz is the gift that keeps on giving. While, unfortunately, she keeps on living.

Dr. Caligari · **Joined:** Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:22 pm **Posts:** 225

jtmunkus wrote:

Orly Taitz is the gift that keeps on giving. While, unfortunately, she keeps on living.

Dallasite · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:10 pm

Did those pesky FBI files ever turn up?

PatGund · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:14 pm

jtmunkus wrote:

Orly Taitz is the gift that keeps on giving.

She's the cold sore on the lips of the legal system

bob · **Posted:** Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:50 pm

P&E: Citizen Writes to Inspector General Re: Judges’ Obstruction of Justice for Obama

Quote:

“A CRIMINAL CHARADE”

Art Olszewski wrote:

Inspector General:

[...]

In the case of Taitz v Astrue,–A FOIA case asking for Obama’s social security info because it was found he has a phony Connecticut social security number (ssn) and as many as 25 others- DC Judge Royce Lamberth showed his complete contempt for Taitz and the bias he had for her as shown by the enclosed attachments. In my letter(A) to the judge, I spell out what was said. The judge used language like “not your lucky day, lady” and “no public interest.” When in fact, I presented him with a headline that showed that the people watching KHON2 TV in of Hawaii rated this story—the most popular. The Astrue case, above, carried over to Hawaii where a similar case (Fuddy) was going on.

Letter (B) is a critique of Lamberth, quotes that again show his strange feelings in this case, some of which appear to be completely wrong. This FOIA case specifically addresses just how much freedom the executive branch has and what is private or public. Exhibits (C) are copies of evidence that the judge arbitrarily won’t consider. They POSITIVELY prove that Obama is using a false social security number as stated by the Social Security Verification System and a copy of his Selective Service application, where he again uses the phony Conn. SSN. Exhibit (D) is a copy of The Post & Email article that explains how Taitz tried to get evidence entered such as E-Verify Self-Check, investigator Linda Jordan’s sworn statement dealing with forged ssn’s, investigator Papa’s findings on the Conn. ssn and The Obama’s 2009 tax return that Lamberth arbitrarily won’t use.

The frustration of Taitz is shown in document (E). She filed an emergency Writ of Mandemus with the US Court of Appeals in DC just last week. The filing gives all the details of the judicial charade she has had to go through for the past three years. During this time frame, she has had at least five judges completely reverse themselves during the course of her lawsuits. Even Chief Justice Roberts promised to review her findings but did nothing. The mountain of evidence she has accumulated is irrefutable. In short, we have a problem with our judiciary. The information showing that Congress is also complicit in the crimes mentioned above is presented below.

[...]

My letter to Senator Toomey (G) is even more frustrating. I presented his office with the same data as Murphy, even sending the findings of the above-mentioned 15 investigators.. His staff unequivocally stated that Toomey has absolutely “no interest” in the Obama issues and instructed his staff not to even discuss them.

lyssandri · **Posted:** Sat Nov 19, 2011 7:24 pm

Art Olszewski wrote:

My letter to Senator Toomey (G) is even more frustrating. I presented his office with the same data as Murphy, even sending the findings of the above-mentioned 15 investigators.. His staff unequivocally stated that Toomey has absolutely “no interest” in the Obama issues and instructed his staff not to even discuss them.

Go Toomey!!

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

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

Who is online