In April after Taitz committed fraud in obtaining Obama’s National Clearinghouse Student information while her buddy Hollister did the same in obtaining Obama’s selective service info, she filled an amended complaint in Taitz v Astrue to include her new fraudulently obtained “evidence”. (More on that “here” )
One of the many issues of ignorance with this whole thing is that she filed the original complaint to the wrong address, and never properly served the defendant or the U.S. Attorney’s office in her amended complaint. Ignoring those facts all together on 5/17/11 she filled a “Request for Default” demanding that default be entered since she had not received any reply on her amended complaint. Judge Lamberth hand wrote “Request Denied” on her document indicating that “No proof of service has been filed; only proof of mailing”. So of course Orly filed a “Return Of Service/Affidavit of Summons and Complaint Executed” on 5/20.11, which includes copies of her mailing receipts. I’m not sure how she figures that counts as proof of service, but we are talking about Orly here.
Three days later Michael Astrue filed a “Motion to Strike” Orly’s Amended Complaint:
“Defendant Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves the Court to strike from the record Plaintiff’s Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and all attached exhibits pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. Those filings contain numerous social-security numbers, along with Plaintiff’s allegations as to the individuals to whom those numbers are assigned. “Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains an individual’s social-security number . . . a party or nonparty making the filing may include only . . . the last four digits of the social-security number.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(1). Defendant accordingly moves the Court to strike Plaintiff’s Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and all attached exhibits, and to order Plaintiff to refile the documents under seal or with properly redacted social-security numbers.”
YES! Finally she is being called out for illegally posting people’s social security numbers. Something she has been doing continually for over 2 years! Hopefully this will come back at her as a big ole Birfer Bitch Slap!
But wait, it gets better still! Somehow in her demented little birfer brain she apparently believes that because she mailed in her mailing receipts that her request for default judgment in Taitz v Astrue is magically GRANTED. So when she received a letter from the state of Hawaii DOH denying her request, (or I should say her demand) for access to Obama’s birth records, another thing no one can obtain without Obama’s consent, I guess she figured her imaginary default judgment in Taitz v Astrue also gives her the right to subpoena the director of the Health Department.
I’m still having trouble trying to figure out how the state of Hawaii DOH has anything to do with a case filled against the SS Administration in Washington DC. Not to mention that this subpoena was not actually issued by the court, but apparently printed off and filled out by Orly herself. If she thinks the HD is dumb enough to buy that shit she’s crazier than I thought.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, Orly’s was reveling in her imaginary default victory. The Birferverse was just buzzing with praise believing that Orly has indeed finally won discovery and that the court, not Orly had issued this “actually illegal” subpoena.
I swear I busted a gut laughing when I was reading the recently released transcript from the “Liberi v Taitz” hearing from December as all of this was going on and I came across this little jewel on page 39, line 5 where Taitz says to the court:
“But also, I would ask to sanction Mr. Berg for issuing an illegal subpoena in the case where there was no discovery ordered.”
So it appears that she knows full well that issuing an illegal subpoena is well, STOOPID and one CAN be sanctioned for it. But that didn’t stop her from doing it. What an idiot!
Moving right along, and still believing her fantasy default judgment and delusional discovery is real on 5/31/11 she filled “Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Preparation Of A Vaughn Index” It’s a one page, one sentence motion:
“Plaintiff Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ moves this court for an order requiring the Defendant to provide within 30 after granting of this motion, an itemized, indexed inventory of every agency record or portion thereof responsive to Plaintiff’s request which Defendant asserts to be exempt from disclosure, accompanied by a detailed justification statement covering each refusal to release records or portion thereof in accordance with the indexing requirements of Vaughn v Rosen.”
Are we talking balls the size of coconuts here or what?
On 6/2/11 Judge Lamberth issued “This Order” granting in part and denying in part Michael Astrue’s motion to strike, saying:
“It is hereby ORDERED that the defendants motion is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s complaint, First Amended Complaint, and all attached exhibits shall be removed from the public record and filed under seal. Plaintiff is directed to refile those documents with properly redacted social security numbers on the public record within 14 days.”
Sounds pretty clear to me. Remove all filings from public record and file them under seal and he directed her to refile with properly redacted SSN’s within 14 days on the public record. In other words he telling her that she CAN’T publish SSN’s and names publicly and gave her 2 weeks to fix it. So what did she do? On 6/6/11 she posted on her website her “Motion for clarification” and in it she reposted the social security number twice and claims she doesn’t know what she is required to redact since they are invalid numbers and they don’t apply to the rules. She starts with a little sucking up, which I’m sure won’t help:
“Plaintiff thanks the court for allowing the documents not to be sealed, and only requesting refilling with redaction. Plaintiff believes that this case is of the outmost National importance and sealing the complaint and the exhibits will deprive the public of their right to know the truth.”
She goes on about how all of these SS numbers are stolen and therefore invalid and I just love this bit:
“This means that none of the numbers used by Obama during his life and used today in the White House, are valid numbers. Those are either numbers, that were never assigned or numbers, that were assigned to deceased individuals, whose death was not reported to the Social Security administration. Mr. Obama’s lifelong friend, domestic terrorist William Ayers, aka Mr. “Guilty as sin, free as a bird”, described in his memoirs, Fugitive Days, how he and his wife, Ms. domestic terrorist Bernadette Dohrn, searched through the cemeteries for graves of children, got their birth certificates and applied for the social security numbers under the names of the deceased.”
This is probably where she got the idea to badger the poor parents of infants that died at the same time Obama was born trying to get copies of their birth records so she can prove Obama stole the birth certificate numbers. And yes, she did that.
She finishes with this:
“Clearly Mr. Obama cannot suffer any losses, due to his use of an invalid number, however there is a great benefit to the public at large, to ascertain the loopholes and malfunction within the Social Security Administration and make sure, that not only Mr. Obama is ultimately prosecuted, but also to make sure, that proper measures are taken to prevent such occurrence in the future. Great public interest and great significance of this most important matter of the national security outweigh minor inconveniences for the defendant commissioner of the Social Security administration and for Mr. Obama.
6. Since NONE of the numbers used by Mr. Obama represent a valid social security number, assigned to him, Taitz needs clarification from the court and the defendant, commissioner of the Social Security Administration, what exactly do they want her to redact? Do they want her to redact numerical gibberish, numbers that are invalid and were never assigned or the numbers, that were stolen from the deceased individuals? Please advise.”
So after twice more publishing the same SSN she was directed by the court to redact she followed her motion for clarification up with yet another “Motion for Default Judgment” on 6/7/11 where she publishes the SSN again three more times.
She finishes that motion with:
“Evidence, provided in the complaint, first amended complaint and this motion show, that we have and individual with a forged birth certificate and an invalid Social Security number usurping the position of the President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief by virtue of use of forged and fraudulently obtained vital records. This is the most serious breach of the U.S. national security since the creation of this nation. The interest of protection of the public require urgent resolution of the case at hand.
12. There will be no detriment to the defendant Commissioner of the Social Security administration, Michael Astrue, or Mr. Obama if the default judgment is entered and the required application is released, as one cannot be harmed by release of the application to an invalid Social Security number.
13. There is a high likelihood of further stone walling and aiding and abetting Mr. Obama by the US attorneys’ office and Department of Justice, led by Obama appointee Attorney General Eric Holder, representing the Defendant, as prior criminal complaints on the matter by the Plaintiff and thousands of U.S. citizens went unanswered.
14. There is no other remedy, that would provide the information and the document in question.
15. Privacy interests do not attach to release of invalid document.
16. Balancing the hardships will unquestionably tip the scale in favor of granting this motion for default judgment and ordering the Social Security administration to provide to the Plaintiff the original application to the social security number XXX-XX-XXX.” (Redacted by CIP)
Since Judge Lamberth’s order on 6/2/11 directing Orly to redact her public filings, instead of doing as directed, she has at this point submitted two more filings filled with even more unredacted SSN’s. And without having received any response to those two additional filings, on 6/11/11 she posted this:
“Taitz v Astrue redacted first amended complaint and redacted complaint FedExed today
Posted on June 11, 2011 No Comments”
Now, as Michael Astrue pointed out, According to Federal rules to civil procedure “Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains an individual’s social-security number . . . a party or nonparty making the filing may include only the last four digits of the social-security number.” “Here” is a link to the pdf of her “redacted complaint”, if anyone is interested in reading it or seeing for themselves, but I shit you not, this is how she redacted the SSN’s from her complaints: (Note: the thick black lines are the unredacted portions, that I redacted, the last 4 are Orly's redaction)
I’m sorry; I just don’t believe that anyone can truly be that fucking stupid! When these three filings land on Judge Lamberth’s desk, and I’m hoping it will be tomorrow, there is no telling what he may do. He could hold Orly in contempt of court because clearly she is, regardless of whether it’s been done out of sheer ignorance, or blatant defiance. IMO both apply to Taitz’s actions, and if that’s the case I hope he throws her sorry ass in jail where she belongs. Other options could include sanctioning and fines, but she’s already been sanctioned and fined and that didn’t seem to faze her. Then there’s always being disbarred, which she certainly deserves, but I doubt that would even stop her.
Jail time might work!
We shall see very soon!