OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz


If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.





The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
orly.taitz@gmail.com.
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.
 -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.
 -- Mahatma Gandhi


More explanation on 60B Motion. Rule 60B6 allows to bring a motion for consideration any time for any reason that justifies relief. Ending usurpation of the US Presidency by a criminal using a stolen Social Security number definitely justifies relief. Any more questions???

Posted on | June 6, 2013 | 4 Comments

RULE 60. RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER

(a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court’s leave.

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.

(1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.

(2) Effect on Finality. The motion does not affect the judgment’s finality or suspend its operation.

(d) Other Powers to Grant Relief. This rule does not limit a court’s power to:

(1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding;

(2) grant relief under 28 U.S.C. §1655 to a defendant who was not personally notified of the action; or

(3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.

(e) Bills and Writs Abolished. The following are abolished: bills of review, bills in the nature of bills of review, and writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, and audita querela.

Comments

4 Responses to “More explanation on 60B Motion. Rule 60B6 allows to bring a motion for consideration any time for any reason that justifies relief. Ending usurpation of the US Presidency by a criminal using a stolen Social Security number definitely justifies relief. Any more questions???”

  1. Andy Morris
    June 6th, 2013 @ 11:09 am

    I think you’ll find that losing at trial isn’t a valid 60(b) reason

  2. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    June 6th, 2013 @ 12:35 pm

    1. there was never any trial
    2. there is new evidence
    3. SSA were defrauding the court by not advising the court that the person is 120 years old and they had to release he record under 120 year rule

  3. Barry Needs to Go
    June 6th, 2013 @ 3:07 pm

    Checkmate!

  4. Ro
    June 6th, 2013 @ 5:02 pm

    There is no reason whatsoever that Obama should have a CT ssN. Yet some are saying it doesn’t mean anything. Those “some” forgot to mention that on the WH web tax returns were shown with the CT SSN. How does Zullo explaIN THAT? huh?

Leave a Reply