Press release: Reply to opposition in an action against the postmaster general and IG of USPS in relation to a fabricated cancellation USPS stamp on Obama’s fabricated Selective Service Registration
Posted on | January 30, 2014 | 10 Comments
Press release: Reply to opposition in Taitz v Donahoe
Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE § 13-cv-1020
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§
Patrick Donahoe, Postmaster General, §
David C. Williams, Inspector General §
for the United States Postal Service §
Respondent §
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF
STATEMENT OF FACTS
At issue in this case a criminal complaint and subsequent FOIA request for records filed by plaintiff Taitz in relation to a fabricated cancellation postal stamp affixed to a fabricated Selective Service Registration for Barack Obama. Plaintiff provided the USPS and Inspector General of USPS with a sworn affidavit from a Chief Investigator of Special Investigations unit of US Coast Guard attesting to the fact that aforementioned Selective service registration and aforementioned cancellation stamp on it represent forgeries. She also provided the defendants with a video tape of a press conference, where Maricopa County Sheriff, Joseph Arpaio not only asserted that aforementioned documents are forgeries, but also provided a video presentation showing step by step how the forger fabricated a bogus 1980 cancellation USPS stamp affixed to Barack Obama’s bogus Selective Service registration. Complaint was filed in Spring of 2012. In Spring of 2013 Plaintiff filed a FOIA request seeking results of investigation of her complaint. Plaintiff did not receive a response in statutory 20 business days and filed a legal action at hand. Defense revealed that in June of 2012 Inspector General of USPS requested an investigation of the matter by the Fraud Division of USPS. Inspector General demanded an answer within 30 days. This answer was not provided to Plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed with USPS and defense provided an answer to the appeal, which allegedly came from FOIA officer Gladis Griffith, however it was not signed by her, it was signed “for” her, it is unknown who signed this letter and if the person who signed it has any connection to USPS or whether the person who signed it is the same forger who created the bogus USPS stamp in the first place. Alleged letter claimed that by the time the complaint was filed, there was no response from the Fraud Department to Inspector General and that Ms. Griffith was since informed by someone that the matter of the complaint, i.e. fabrication of a bogus cancellation USPS stamp for Selective Service Registration for the President of the US somehow does not represent fraud and it is not something they would investigate.
DEFENSE DID NOT DENY AND THEREFORE ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO VALID RESPONSE AND ATTEMPTED RESPONSE WAS NOT A VALID DOCUMENT, NOT A VALID LEGAL WRITING, AS IT WAS SIGNED BY AN UNKNOWN INDIVIDUAL AND FRAUDULENTLY PRESENTED TO THE COURT AS A DOCUMENT WHICH WAS SRITTEN OR AUTHORIZED TO BE WRITTEN BY FOIA APPEALS OFFICER GLADIS C. GRIFFITH
As stated, Plaintiff is seeking a response from the fraud division to the Inspector General in relation to a fabricated cancellation postal stamp which was affixed to a fabricated Selective Service Registration for Barack Obama.
In June of 2012 Inspector General of USPS requested a response from the Fraud Department in regards to aforementioned evidence of fraud.
Defendants provided with their opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff an alleged response which allegedly came from a senior FOIA officer Gladis Griffith. However, this response did not have a signature of Gladis Griffith. There was something scribbled, the name of Gladis Griffith was typed and next to it was hand written “for”. So someone has signed this document for Gladis Griffith, however Defense did not provide any information, as to who signed the document.
For all we know this document was signed by the same forger who created the rest of Obama’s IDs and the aforementioned stamp.
Any time a lower ranked employee signs a document for a senior employee, the name of the lower ranked employee is typed next to his signature, so the public knows who signed the document. This is particularly true when a document is submitted to a court of law. This was not done here and it is unknown who signed the document.
Defense did not deny that the aforementioned document did not represent a valid document, did not represent a valid writing, that it was not signed by FOIA officer Gladis Griffith and that the person who signed it can be someone with no connection to the Defendants or to USPS.
The only thing defense provided is an assertion that there is no law specifically stating that they are supposed to provide the name of the person who signed the document and the employee on whose behalf the document was signed, has to provide an affidavit that it was signed on her behalf.
The court in United America Financial, Inc. v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, 770 F.Supp.2d 252, noted that dissemination of information to citizens for use in making “vital political choices” is a significant consideration. (Id at 257.) In fact, “FOIA “was enacted to facilitate public access to government documents. [U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173, 112 S.CT. 541, 116 L.Ed. 2d 526 (1991). The statute provides public access to official information ‘shielded unnecessarily’ from public view and establishes a ‘judicially enforceable public right to secure such information from possibly unwilling official hands” (emphasis added, Lahr v. National Transp. Safety Bd. 569 F.3d 964, 974, citing Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 48 L.Ed.2d 11 (1976).) The court in Lahr further noted that the dissemination of information would “ensure an informed citizenry” and “was vital to the functioning of a democratic society and needed to check agisnt corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed. (Ibid., citing John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 152, 110 S.Ct. 471, 107 L.Ed.2d 462 (1989).)
WHERE THERE ARE IMPROPRIETIES AND/OR QUESTIONS EXIST REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE RESPONSE, THE COURT IS EMPOWERED TO DIRECT THAT A FURTHER INQUIRY BE MADE AND THAT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION/INFORMATION BE PRODUCED.
Contrary to Defendant’s assertion Plaintiff’s requests do not exceed the scope of the authority of this court nor does it exceed the nature and extent of a FOIA request. Where there are improprieties and/or questions exist regarding the nature of the response, the Court is empowered to direct that a further inquiry be made and that additional documentation/information be produced. As noted in Nation Magazine, Washington Bureau v. United States Customs Service 71 F.3d 885, (1995), the Court can require the responding agency to conduct a further investigation and provide supplemental declaration(s) attesting to its response. In the decision by the Court of Appeals reversing a ruling on summary judgment in Nation Magazine, Washington Bureau v. United States Customs Service the Court of Appeals stated to the District Court:” Because Customs has not submitted detailed affidavits to allow us to review the adequacy of their search, we reverse the district court grant of summary judgment on this point. On remand the district court should address both issues that occasion our reversal here”id.
Motion of Summary Judgment is granted when there is no triable issue of fact. Under a FOIA agency is required to provide an affidavit of sufficient search. Abdelfattah v United States Dep’t of Homeland Security 488 F 3d 178, 182 (3d Cir 2007). Not only Taitz is entitled to know the name of the person who signed the document, she is actually entitled to a sworn affidavit from this person. Here there are triable issues of fact:
1. Defense provided a response to appeal which was filed with the agency by Taitz. Defense claims that the response came from FOIA appeals officer Gladis Griffith. Taitz responded by pointing out that it was not signed by Griffith, that it was signed by someone else “for” Griffith and the name of the person who signed the document is not provided. This would be equivalent to someone drafting a decision from this court which would state that fabricating identification documents for the President of the US does not constitute fraud. A person would sign such decision “for” Honorable Judge Lamberth and upon request the court would not reveal who signed the decision for the judge. Would that be a valid court decision? Of Course, not. It would be fraud and a criminal offense. Similarly, a response to FOIA appeal signed by someone “for” FOIA officer without providing the name of the person signing for this FOIA officer, represents fraud and does not represent a valid document from such FOIA officer. Based on Nation Magazine and Abdelfattah the agency is obligated to provide the response in the form of a sworn affidavit from FOIA Officer Griffith, where she would attest to the writing or a sworn affidavit from a person who on August 2, 2013 signed the letter “for” Griffith without providing her or his name.
2. The letter from Griffith contradicts the assertion by the defense that there are no more documents available. In the letter, supposedly authorized by Griffith, it states that it was related to her that the issue at hand does not represent fraud. (Exhibit 1 herein and ECF 16-1) So, Griffith avers to some type of a document that was provided to her that stated that fabrication of a bogus 1980 USPS stamp on a bogus Selective Service Certificate for a person occupying a position of the US President somehow does not constitute fraud. Taitz is entitled to receive this document, this letter received by Griffith.
3. Further, as stated, Inspector General demanded from the Fraud Department a 30 day response in regards to evidence of fraud in Obama’s IDs. It is unreasonable to believe that the Fraud Department would not respond in a matter, such as this. It is reasonable to believe that a response was sent and is being unlawfully withheld. It would probably be the document referred to in Griffith’s response. Further, it is likely that Griffith did not sign the letter herself and someone anonymous signed it “for” her in order to create plausible deniability, as cover up of fraud of such magnitude, cover up of a fabricated postal stamp on a fabricated ID for a U.S. President, can be viewed not only as a complicity to fraud and forgery, but also a complicity to treason.
Conclusion
Evidence shows that the defense did not provide Plaintiff with all the information requested in FOIA request and Plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment on following issues:
1. Defense should be ordered to release to the plaintiff a response and any and all correspondence provided by the Fraud Department of the USPS to the Inspector General of the USPS, and specifically, but not limited to a response to which FOIA officer Gladis C Griffith avers to in her August 2, 2013 letter (Appeal 2013-IGAP-00026, FOIA case No 2013-IGFP-00406)
2. Defense is entitled to a sworn affidavit signed by the individual, who signed August 2, 2013 letter (Appeal 2013-IGAP-00026, FOIA case No 2013-IGFP-00406) “for” Gladis Griffith.
Respectfully,
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
01.30.2014
Cc UN Nations committee for civil rights defenders
OHCHR in New York
UN Headquarters
New York, NY 10017
USA
Inter-American Commission for Human rights
1889 F St., NW,
Washington, D.C., USA 20006
Darrel Issa
Chairman of the House oversight committee
2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING,
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
Congressman Bob Goodlatt ,
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee
House of Representative
2409 2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING,
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
Public Integrity Unit Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice
Criminal Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Room 4706
Washington, D.C. 20530
Comments
10 Responses to “Press release: Reply to opposition in an action against the postmaster general and IG of USPS in relation to a fabricated cancellation USPS stamp on Obama’s fabricated Selective Service Registration”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
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.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
January 30th, 2014 @ 9:32 pm
Dear Lady Liberty, We’ve followed your heroic quest since 2009 and think you are amazing! Your pleadings get better and better and more effective, this is a slam dunk from how we read it. We know how modest you are, but you truly are an American hero and we nominated you for the Anderson Cooper CNN Heroes at https://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/living/cnnheroes-how-to-nominate/, you are so deserving of this high honor. Please Dr. Orly, don’t ever, ever give up, the world is watching and praying for you to make our country great again! Respectfully, Peter and Delores PS: Have you ever thought of running for Sheriff? They have so much power and you would clean house and have a platform to really get things done… do you have to be in law enforcement to be Sheriff? We remember your martial arts training, that must be a qualifier 🙂 God Bless!
January 31st, 2014 @ 6:40 am
Dr Taitz. I second the first comment above. You have the stamina of a staunch world war II warrior. Millions of Americans have been following your unrelenting battle for 5 years. Time for us to give some monitory support. My portion is forthcoming. Also God bless.
January 31st, 2014 @ 8:13 am
I third the 1st comment here and second the second comment here!
Bravo, Lady Liberty!
January 31st, 2014 @ 8:54 am
Carry on, thou hand of justice.
Let freedom ring! And tyrants …
January 31st, 2014 @ 10:44 am
Way to go Orly, Smart move AGAIN! This is like a chess game. You are winning!
January 31st, 2014 @ 11:37 am
I hope you are right, from your mouth into God’s ears
January 31st, 2014 @ 6:24 pm
Orly,I second what the first post is. BUTTTT— My belief is that he was positioned for this job the day his (birth announcement was announced on the news in 1961. WHY ELSE would the spectator in the crowd that surrounded the reporter that day say:: (one day he will be president)???? Why did he o know at 17 years old that he was going to be? This was a done deal in 1961!
February 1st, 2014 @ 4:10 am
God bless you and keep you safe! I believe you should be nominated for US Attorney General if the conservatives ever take back the White House from this usurper!
February 1st, 2014 @ 2:21 pm
Agreed. Or she could be a Deputy AG to
Rudy Giuliani. Both good choices at Justice.
IMO.
February 1st, 2014 @ 5:22 pm
You are nucking futs!
Eat shit. I hope they cram a whole lot of shit down your throat! I want to see you forced to eat feces!