Posted on | February 20, 2013 | 1 Comment
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 |
|
04/27/2012 |
![Open Document](https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=document.gif) |
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 |
![Open Document](https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=document.gif) |
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 |
![Open Document](https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=document.gif) |
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 |
![Open Restricted Document](https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=doclock.gif) |
SUPPLEMENT [1380221] to petition for rehearing en banc [1377943-2] filed by Orly Taitz [Service Date: 06/18/2012] [11-5304] |
07/30/2012 |
![Open Document](https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=document.gif) |
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 |
![Open Document](https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=document.gif) |
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 |
![Open Document](https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=document.gif) |
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 |
![Open Document](https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=document.gif) |
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] |
02/19/2013 |
![Open Document](https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=document.gif) |
MOTION filed [STYLED AS “MOTION FOR JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANT”] [1421271] by Orly Taitz. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 03/04/2013) [Service Date: 02/18/2013 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11- |
|
Comments
June 13th, 2018 @ 3:35 pm
Howdy fantastic blog! Does running a blog like this require
a great deal of work? I’ve virtually no understanding of coding but I was hoping to start my own blog in the near future.
Anyway, if you have any recommendations or techniques for new blog owners please share.
I understand this is off subject however I simply had to ask.
Kudos!