Posted on | October 9, 2013 | 21 Comments
Press release from Dr. Orly Taitz
1. Taitz v Donahoe
Obama’s use of a fabricated selective service registration with a fabricated cancellation postal stamp affixed to it.
Today I received a call from number 202-752-2506. The person identified himself as Daniel Van Horn, Chief of Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He stated that he got a call from the court in regards to my case Taitz v Donahue and my motion for summary judgment. From what I understand the court gave them heads up that the defense did not respond and they need to file a response. (the court would not give heads up to U.S. citizens). He stated that they confirmed that the complaint was received in the mail room of the Department of Justice, but it somehow disappeared. He stated that there is no question that I served them properly, but the papers disappeared in the mail room. He is planning to respond to Judge Lamberth and seek a delay and a stay of the case due to the shutdown of the government. He said that even after the shutdown he will ask for extension of time due to backlog. He wanted to know if I will consent to the delay. I told him that it is like with the debt ceiling stalemate: where Obama wants a trillion dollars credit card from Congress and the Congress asks, what will they get in return. I wanted to know what will I get in return? I stated that my only consideration is resolving the matter on the merits. I am doing this pro bono, as I grew up in the communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union, where the country was governed by a complete lawlessness. I want to make sure this is not happening, we cannot have a person sitting in the White House with a fabricated Selective Service registration with a fabricated cancellation USPS stamp affixed to it. I asked for a meeting with him an his clients: Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe and Inspector General of the USPS David Williams in order to get an agreement to resolve this on the merits. Mr. Van Horn stated that he does not think they will agree to it and he cannot do it. I asked if he would stipulate to a mutual request to Judge Lamberth to order such meeting with a mediator or an arbitrator. He said he cannot do it, but will provide Judge Lamberth with this request.
Further, I asked if he can forward a copy of the complaint to the criminal division of the Department of Justice, he said that the Chair of the Criminal Division is Mary McCord, they do have more people there during the shut down, but he does not think it will help, he does not think they will do anything.
He stated that he understands the situation and he knows that my intentions are honorable and he believes that it will be ultimately decided on the merits, but at the moment he only can write to the judge and ask for a stay due to the shut down.
2. Taitz v Astrue Motion for reconsideration was filed based on rule 60B 2. 6.
Today I got an order from Judge Lamberth, where he ruled on a completely different statute: 60 c. He said that statute 60 C has only 1 year time limitation, however I filed my motion based on 60 B 2, 6, which does not have any time limitation as long as it serves justice. I will post the motion yet again. So I will be filing yet another motion to Lamberth, letting him know that he ruled based on a wrong statute and he needs to reconsider and rule based on a correct statute. Also, he denied a motion for default without any consideration and reason and allowed the Department of Justice to file a late response.
I am also really angry, as we can see an impermissible bias in court: the court gives the government additional time, the court is calling the attorneys for the defense, even though it is an impermissible ex parte communication between the court and a party in the case, while keeping the other party in the dark in regards to such communication. Time and again judges dismiss cases against Obama due to time limitation, however when the defense does not respond, judges allow them to file late papers, rule on wrong statutes, anything and everything to cover up this crime of the century. He also did not grant the motion for judicial notice, stating that the Census papers for Bounel were not certified, however governmental agencies routinely refuse any and all requests for certification, particularly of documents, which represent inconvenient truth. Feds never denied that the Census papers were correct, so this is yet another excuse.
Bottom line, the courts treat U.S. citizens trying to get Justice and prosecute criminals in power, as second class citizens. This should not be happening.
Now I am in my dental office. When Van Horn called I was literally pulling teeth. I will review the paper in the evening and will file an answer. No ruling yet in MD on the case filed directly based on Bounel’s IDs. No ruling yet in other cases.
Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ