Orly Taitz: Will The Judge Be Her Chum???

vampira

She Was So Busy Crowing, She Didn’t Notice Her Hands Were Stinky

In the recent Loco Motion article here, (Doing The Loco Motion!!!) we discussed Taitz’s mistake  in assuming that the default process for judgements also applies to Motions. First, keep in mind that the word CHUM has two meanings.

Noun

1. A close friend.
2. Chopped fish, fish fluids, and other material thrown overboard as angling bait.

Verb

1. Be friendly to or form a friendship with someone.
2. Use chum as bait when fishing.

Now, it is time to focus in on one of her specific requests. (In Note 2 below I copied and pasted her motion into a word processor to make it easier to read. Plus, I cleaned it up a little. I also made a pdf.)  Here are paragraphs 6 and 7 from her motion:

6.    Plaintiff, who is an attorney from the state of California, filed this case, as she was seeking to uphold constitutional freedoms, as a president for a not for profit Defend Our Freedoms foundation. She spent three years working on this case. She was also subjected to harassment and defamation as defense claimed that her actions were frivolous.

7.     Not only interests of Justice would justify granting her motion for reconsideration under the Rule 60B(2),(6), but interests of Justice would justify sanctions against the defense for the reasonable value of time Taitz wasted in court for the past three years and abuse and defamation she was subjected to due to frivolous actions by the defense.

I think that Taitz has opened a bucket of worms with this particular request. Judges have a great deal of discretion in Motions of this kind.  Judge Lamberth has made been required to make numerous Orders in this case, many dealing with Taitz’s inexplicable inability to properly redact, scratch out, or “x” out the first 5 numbers in Obama’s social security number as is required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(1). A pdf copy of four Orders in this matter are found in Note 3 below.

As Judge Lamberth pointed out in his previous Order and Memorandum (Oct. 17, 2011) concerning the previous round of Taitz Motions For Reconsideration:

While district courts enjoy discretion over the decision whether to grant a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), such motions are “disfavored” and are reserved for “extraordinary circumstances.” Liberty Prop. Trust v. Republic Props. Corp., 570 F. Supp. 2d 95, 97 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Niedermeir v. Office of Baucus, 153 F. Supp. 2d 23, 28 (D.D.C. 2001)). In seeking reconsideration, a party must show that “there has been an intervening change of controlling law, that new evidence is available, or that granting the motion is necessary to correct a clear error or to prevent manifest injustice.” Id.

There is no new evidence, so her Motion is going nowhere. However, we may also obtain a broad hint as to how credible Judge Lamberth finds Taitz’s claims and how likely he is to be her pal, and grant her fees. In Note 1 of the above Oct. 17, 2011 Order:

1 The Court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits. However, suffice it to say that plaintiff’s argument is premised on the incorrect assumption that Social Security numbers assigned prior to 1973 have any correlation to the recipient’s residence, see Employer Filing Instructions and Information, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/stateweb.htm (“Prior to 1973, social security numbers were assigned by our field offices. The [first three] number[s] merely established that his/her card was issued by one of our offices in that State.”). Plaintiff’s entire premise is totally defeated by a cursory examination of this site, which demonstrates that plaintiff’s allegations lack any basis in fact.

When a court is “loath to dignify” a Plaintiff’s allegations, that does not bode well. Judge Lamberth also gives a slight clue as to how he views Taitz’s claims and professionalism in other Orders in this case. From his decision of a few weeks ago, June 7, 2013:

This Court has reminded the plaintiff of this on multiple occasions. As the Court pointed out in its July 2011 Memorandum and Order, “[t]he Court will not tolerate plaintiff’s repeated violations of this Rule.. . . There is no logical explanation [plaintiff] can provide as to why she is now wasting the Court’s time, as well as staff’s time, with these improper redactions. ”Mem. & Order 1, 3, ECF No. 30.

Moreover, as the Court has previously noted, “repeated violations of the Rules are in fact sanctionable, even sua sponte.” Id. at 2.

The Court has declined to previously impose sanctions because the defendant has not sought them. However, the Court has directed that prior improper submissions “be kept for consideration of possible sanctions against plaintiff.” Order, July 25, 2011, ECF No. 29.

Wow! Lamberth clearly found that she was wasting the Court’s time. But, that doesn’t necessarily mean he finds her either lazy or stupid. Does it??? Let’s look at his language from a July 25, 2011 Order:

Taitz v Astrue July 2011 jpeg

(Click On Image To Make Larger.)

 

Hmmm. I think if a Judge muses whether an attorney is “displaying her own stupidity”,  then he is unlikely to grant that same attorney fees for “the reasonable value of time Taitz wasted in court for the past three years.” Or maybe if he does, the amount of compensation will be figured at a nominal amount of maybe $1.00 per year.  To be offset against any fees awarded the defense. Finally you have these sarcastic little barbs from Lamberth’s August 30, 2011 Order:

Ever persistent, plaintiff has once again come before this Court in an effort to uncover “the biggest cover up in the history of this nation.” Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. 20 [31].

As her numerous filings with the Court demonstrate, plaintiff will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is not her lucky day.

But plaintiff’s unsubstantiated allegations, without more, do not persuade the Court that the requested information “would likely disclose” official misconduct, id., and thus do not affect the calculus here.

And plaintiff—for all her allegations—has produced no “evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged government impropriety might have occurred.” Nat’l Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004). Her vehement allegations of fraud consist of mere “bare suspicion[s]” and thus fail to satisfy the public interest standard required under FOIA. Id.
4

As with the registration acknowledgement form discussed above, the Court can only conclude that plaintiff has submitted a page that some individual obtained under false pretenses—that is, by representing himself as the President’s employer. The Court notes that both documents submitted by plaintiff are incomplete; the address on the registration acknowledgment form and the employer identification number on the SSNVS page have been blacked out, further confirming the documents’ fraudulent origins. For all of these reasons, the Court will disregard both documents as well as any arguments made in reliance on them.

The upshot is, that even if the SSA and the opposing attorneys had actually withheld some vital information from Taitz, her own hands are so filthy dirty that she will get no relief. However, I do not suspect there is any intentional wrongdoing about the rule on the part of the defendants. To wit, at a minimum:

1. Taitz did not include the mysterious Harrison Bounel as a party;

2. She has presented no substantive facts or evidence about Harrison Bounel, including his age;

3. Obama is NOT 120 years of age;

4. Harrison Bounel is not the President, and there is no pressing need to invade his privacy.

So, no. Judge Lambert is not going to be her chum. But, she may end up being his. Chop. Chop.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is the beautiful and exotic Maila Nurmi, better known as Vampira. As Wiki says:

Maila Nurmi (December 11, 1922 – January 10, 2008) was a Finnish-American actress who created the campy 1950s character Vampira. She portrayed Vampira as TV’s first horror host and in the Ed Wood cult film Plan 9 from Outer Space. She is also billed as Vampira in the 1959 movie The Beat Generation where she plays a beatnik poet.

Born as Maila Elizabeth Syrjäniemi, she claimed to be the niece of the Finnish athlete Paavo Nurmi, who began setting long-distance running world records in 1921, the year before her birth. She moved to the United States with her family when she was two years old and grew up in Ashtabula, Ohio, home to the largest Finnish-American community in the state. She and her family lived in Ashtabula until 1939, when they moved to Oregon.

She graduated from high school in Astoria, Oregon,  before arriving in Los Angeles. She modeled for Alberto Vargas, Bernard of Hollywood and Man Ray, gaining a foothold in the film industry with an uncredited role in Victor Saville’s 1947 film, If Winter Comes.

She reportedly was fired by Mae West[citation needed] from the cast of West’s Broadway play Catherine Was Great in 1944 because West feared that she was being upstaged. On Broadway, she gained much attention after appearing in the horror-themed midnight show Spook Scandals, in which she screamed, fainted, lay in a coffin and seductively lurked about a mock cemetery. She also worked as a showgirl for the Earl Carroll Theatre and as a high-kicking chorus line dancer at the Florentine Gardens along with stripper Lili St. Cyr. In the 1950s she supported herself mainly by posing for pin-up photos in men’s magazines such as Famous Models, Gala and Glamorous Models. Before landing her role as ‘Vampira’, she was working as a hat-check girl in a cloakroom on Hollywood’s Sunset Strip.

Of course, she went on to create the Vampira role, and starred in Ed Wood’s Plan Nione From Outer Space. Here is the link to the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maila_Nurmi

Note 2. PDF and Text of Taitz’s Motion For Default:

Taitz Loco Motion

=========================================

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE               )                     Case 11-cv-402
Plaintiff,                                                           )                         
                                                                             )                     Hon. Judge Lambert     
v.                                                                          )                     Chief Judge Presiding   
                                                                              )   
Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the   )
Social Security Administration,               )
               Respondent                                       ) 

NOTICE OF DEFAULT/FAILURE TO ANSWER TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

REQUEST FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER LACK OF AN OPPOSITION AS A CONSENT BY THE DEFENSE TO GRANT THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE PLAINTIFF.

ARGUMENT

1.  On 06.13.2013 Defendant and his attorneys were served with the motion for reconsideration at hand. They were served both by mail and through the ECF.

2.    Defense did not oppose the motion.

3.     Plaintiff, Orly Taitz, ESQ requests this court to grant her motion for reconsideration and order SSA, Social Security Administration, to furnish to the plaintiff SS-5, Social Security application for SSN xxx-xx-4425, for Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel, born in 1890 under the 5USC 552 Freedom of Information Act FOIA and 120 year rule of the Social Security Administration, whereby the Social Security Administration is required to produce under 5USC552 and “120 year rule” Social Security Applications SS-5 of “extremely aged individuals” of 120 year old or older without their consent or without proof of death. As Bounel was born in 1890, he would be 123 years old if he would be alive today and his SS-5 has to be released as an SS-5 of an “extremely aged individual”.

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND HIS ATTORNEYS.

1.     Not only the SS-5 of Bounel should be released, there has to be an award of sanctions against the defendant and his attorneys.

2.     Plaintiffs brought this case in 2010.

3.     Unbeknown to Taitz the SSA already had “120 year”, it implemented it, however the public was not made aware of the rule until 2011. Under 120 year rule, the SS-5 of “Extremely aged individuals” of 120 or older had to  be released without consent of the individual or proof of death.

4.    While Taitz did not have this information until recently, the defendant had at all times information showing that Harrison J Bounel, born in 1890 was the holder of SSN xxx-xx-4425 and that the defendant was obligated to release this  SSN under 5USC552 and “120 year rule”.

5.     Defendant and his attorney, “Department of Justice” engaged in egregious behavior and showed malice by refusing to provide the SS-5 in question and claiming privacy, even though they knew at all times that privacy did not apply. They defrauded Judge Lamberth and the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit claiming defense of privacy even though they knew that privacy did not apply.

6.    Plaintiff, who is an attorney from the state of California, filed this case, as she was seeking to uphold constitutional freedoms, as a president for a not for profit Defend Our Freedoms foundation. She spent three years working on this case. She was also subjected to harassment and defamation as defense claimed that her actions were frivolous.

7.     Not only interests of Justice would justify granting her motion for reconsideration under the Rule 60B(2),(6), but interests of Justice would justify sanctions against the defense for the reasonable value of time Taitz wasted in court for the past three years and abuse and defamation she was subjected to due to frivolous actions by the defense.

CONCLUSION

1.     60(B)(2)(6) motion for reconsideration should be granted.

2.     Plaintiff should be compensated for the reasonable value of time she spent litigating this case for the past three years and for the abuse and defamation she underwent due to actions of the defense.

3.    Any and all other relief this court considers reasonable and just.

/s/ Orly Taitz

06.28.2013

=========================================

Note 3. July 25, 2011; August 30, 2011; Oct. 17, 2011; and June 7, 2013 Orders:

Taitz v. Astrue Order July 25, 2011

Taitz v. Astrue Order August 30, 2011

Taitz v. Astrue Oct. 17, 2011 Order

Taitz v. Astrue Order June 7, 2013

Note 4. Justia has the above  Taitz v. Astrue orders and motions here:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2011cv00402/146770/

Blogger NBC has the June 7, 2013 Order here:

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/dc-taitz-v-astrue-order-denied-2/

Advertisements

About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 31. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a new kitten! I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

One response to “Orly Taitz: Will The Judge Be Her Chum???

  • Thomas Brown

    “I think that Taitz has opened a bucket of worms…”

    Perhaps Orly would really prefer to adopt her very own diet of worms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: