Orly Taitz is about to strike out again, this time in Judge Lamberth’s court in her Taitz v. Colvin (once Astrue) action. The other day she was dancing about and high-fiving the Flying Monkeys because the government failed to answer her Motion For Reconsideration. There is an article here a few days ago about it, called Doing The Loco Motion (Doing The Loco Motion!!!)).
Now, the government has responded with a short 3 page reply, 2 of which follow. The third page was just the continuation of an address. Here are the two relevant pages from the brief. PDF’s of both the government’s Response and Brief are in Note 2 below.
Here is the link to Taitz’s page, where we find this ironic statement, from SHE Who Must Have Help Redacting!:
Department of Justice is asking Judge Lamberth to allow them to file a late answer after the notice of failure to respond was docketed because they were confused and did not understand that they need to answer the motion.
I kid you not, read the pleading. This is just unbelievable. Do you think they can be that stupid or are they suddenly got worried that Judge Lamberth might rule to release Bounel’s SS5, SSN application and the whole world will see that Obama is using a stolen Social Security number.
To sum it all up, procedurally, the government was one day late filing their response because they thought the judge had dismissed Taitz’s Motion for Reconsideration. So, they Motioned the Court to permit their response. What with all of Taitz’s various procedural screw-ups, and difficulties redacting Obama’s social security number, I suspect the Court will grant the government’s request.
Procedurally, the government points out that Taitz was late filing her Motion for Reconsideration. Substantively, they point out that Taitz’s,
In any event, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is meritless. In order to receive relief under Rule 60(b)(2), plaintiff must establish that she has identified “‘newly discovered evidence’ that could not have discovered through ‘reasonable diligence’” and that “must be admissible and of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome.” Lightfoot v. District of Columbia, 555 F. Supp. 2d 61, 68 (D.D.C. 2008). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any of the evidence she now relies upon could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence prior to this Court’s original order.
She relies in her motion for reconsideration primarily upon a report she claims was released to the public on March 7, 2011, more than five months before this Court issued its final judgment. See Doc. 45 at 6. Plaintiff also has not shown how any of the evidence she relies upon, even if admissible, is “of such importance that it would probably have changed the outcome.” Lightfoot, 555 F. Supp. 2d at 68. Rather, plaintiff’s motion is premised on “nothing more than an unsubstantiated ‘bare suspicion’ of wrongdoing.’” Memorandum and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 39 at 3 (quoting Nat’l Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004)).
Based on this, Taitz’s Motion will be denied, and she will have one less match in her book. Nonetheless, our scrappy little match girl will go down swinging. She adds:
I am posting both a request to file a late opposition and the opposition the want to file. I did not do research on it yet, as it was just posted, but after 3 seconds of looking at it, I already know that this is a total BS and a sign of dishonesty by the defendant and the Department of Justice
a. they are late with filing an opposition and they claim that my motions are late. If the judge were to rule based on lateness, than he should not consider their late opposition claiming that I am late
b. it was filed under 2 rules: 60b(2) and 60b(6) Motion under 60(b)(6) can be filed any time as long as it serves justice, 2 years from the ruling a 100 years after the ruling, so the whole argument is BS. Moreover the final decision came from the Court of Appeal in August of 2012, less than 1 year, so it is good under both 60(b)(2) and 60 b(6)
c. The feds had a duty to advise the court that the new 120 year rule was instituted and that Bounel falls under this rule, they flagrantly and maliciously defrauded the court by hiding this rule, hiding Bounel’s identity and his DOB in 1890 and lying to judge Lamberth that the SS-5 cannot be released under the privacy rules. They now want to be rewarded for lyin,g for fraud on the court. Not only they should not be rewarded, they should be severely sanctioned.
Sooo, we will have a little sizzle before the fizzle.
Note 1. The Image. This is from Jean Renoir’s 1928 film, The Little Match Girl.
The Little Match Girl, a 40 minute adaptation of a Hans Christian Anderson story, is one of his best and most affecting films. The title character is a waif forced to sell matches on the streets in the dead of winter in order to earn her livelihood. While literally freezing to death, the match girl looks through a toy store window and fantasizes that she is inside and that the toys have magically come to life all around her. The dream-like visuals and fantasy element are atypical for Renoir, the humanism is not.
This image and the excerpt came from a great website:
Note 2. PDF’s Of Government’s Response, and Brief: