Posted on | February 19, 2013 | 10 Comments
| |
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit |
| Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-5304 |
Docketed: 10/31/2011
Termed: 05/25/2012 |
| 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 Paid |
|
| 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 JudgeDate Filed: 02/16/2011Date Order/Judgment:Date NOA Filed:08/30/201110/25/2011 |
|
| 03/16/2012 |
 |
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1364625] to motion for summary affirmance [1353593-2](Reply to Response by Mail and Response to Cross Motion due on 03/29/2012) combined with a MOTION FILED [STYLED AS “MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANT”] by Orly Taitz for summary reversal [Service Date: 03/15/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11-5304] |
| 04/27/2012 |
 |
MOTION filed [1371429] by Orly Taitz for default judgment. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 05/07/2012) [Service Date: 04/24/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11-5304] |
| 05/25/2012 |
|
PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1375820] denying motion for default judgment [1371429-2]; denying motion for summary reversal [1364625-2]; granting motion for summary affirmance [1353593-2], withholding issuance of the mandate. Before Judges: Rogers, Griffith and Kavanaugh. [11-5304] |
| 06/04/2012 |
|
PETITION filed [1377943] by Appellant Orly Taitz for rehearing en banc. [Service Date: 05/31/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 16-20. [11-5304] |
| 06/20/2012 |
|
SUPPLEMENT [1380221] to petition for rehearing en banc [1377943-2] filed by Orly Taitz [Service Date: 06/18/2012] [11-5304] |
| 07/30/2012 |
|
MOTION filed [1387271] by Orly Taitz to recall mandate (Response to Motion served by mail due on 08/09/2012) [Service Date: 07/26/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11-5304] |
| 08/02/2012 |
|
CLERK’S ORDER filed [1387293] Upon consideration of appellant’s motion to recall the mandate, it is ORDERED that the motion be dismissed as moot. No mandate has issued in this case. A petition for rehearing en banc remains pending before the court. The mandate issued July 24, 2012, in No. 11-5306, Taitz v. Ruemmler, where no petition for rehearing was received by the court. [1387271-2] [11-5304] |
| 08/09/2012 |
|
PER CURIAM ORDER, En Banc, filed [1388336] denying petition for rehearing en banc [1377943-2] Before Judges: Sentelle, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Griffith and Kavanaugh. [11-5304] |
| 08/29/2012 |
|
MANDATE ISSUED to Clerk, District Court [11-5304] |
| 01/29/2013 |
|
MOTION filed [STYLED AS “MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DUE TO NEW EVIDENCE AND NEW DECISIONS”] [1417882] by Orly Taitz to recall mandate (Response to Motion served by mail due on 02/11/2013) [Service Date: 01/28/2013 by US Mail] Pages: 11-15 with attachments. [11-5304] |
|
Comments
OrlyTaitzEsq.com
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy, 
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld 
February 19th, 2013 @ 12:01 pm
Is there a number to call?
February 19th, 2013 @ 12:24 pm
Red Flag is saying it was den
February 19th, 2013 @ 12:25 pm
Red Flag is saying it was denied. https://redflagnews.com/headlines/update-obama-id-fraud-case-denied-by-united-states-supreme-court
February 19th, 2013 @ 12:37 pm
My friend Bob Sacamano said there’s no need to call. Ignoring your lawsuit is not against the law.
February 19th, 2013 @ 12:46 pm
What’s the phone number?
February 19th, 2013 @ 2:02 pm
“The Washington Post reports on the seriousness of this abuse of office, “is more than an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advise-and-consent role. It is a breathtaking violation of the separation of powers and the duty of comity that the executive owes to Congress.” Crucially, no other president in history has ever tried to force through such alleged “ recess appointments” while Congress is still in session.” (Excerpt from below)
https://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2013/02/breaking-news-u-s-federal-court-hits-president-barack-hussein-obama-with-three-charges-of-abuse-of-office-2455332.html
February 19th, 2013 @ 2:48 pm
This is a travesty. Some if not all the Supreme Court justices should be tried for high crimes against the United States of America. I would have never dreamed I would see the day this could happen in the once great United States of America. And I say; that’s the exact same thing people said in the Russian gulags and nazi Germany right before they were lead to a mass grave pit and shot to death. s.
February 19th, 2013 @ 4:03 pm
“moderation” for a decision?
February 20th, 2013 @ 7:05 am
Mrs. Taitz, I just needed to put this down to be read…
These Bastards in Washington DC are under the impression that “THEY make the Laws, but THEY do not have to Abide by them”…
People, THIS IS THIER MINDSET!!! And thier is only One way I can think of Changing THIER outlook on Justice (but I cannot mention it).
February 20th, 2013 @ 10:37 pm
Virginia: what has come of this court that filed those charges against O?
……….
And Orly, will this court really do anything to O?