Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The clever use of timing by the slippery Mister Obama
coachisright.com ^ | JUNE 26TH, 2011 | Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer

Posted on 06/26/2011 8:46:22 AM PDT by jmaroneps37

Timing is everything in politics, and the Obama White House has mastered this axiom like none other.

A motion to strike, (a win for Plaintiff Orly Taitz), was granted by the U.S. D.C. District Court in the same 24 hour news cycle Barack Obama appeared before the American people to declare a troop draw down in Afghanistan, (to send them on the ground in Libya in September ??) thus burying a huge story of enormous constitutional merit. The takedown and burial at sea of Osama Bin Laden “coincidentally” happened at the same time another eligibility case moved forward in May.

“…the indefatigable Ms. Taitz, so mocked and scorned by the MSM, won her motion to enforce her Freedom of Information Act request for Obama’s records, filed with the Social Security Administration (SSA).

The befuddled SSA was so busy stonewalling the release of any information concerning her request for Obama’s social security application form that it even let filing dates pass, a real no no!

Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, “the court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense. . .”

In her introduction, Taitz said, “something very strange is going on,” a stunning understatement indeed. Now in an only in America twist, only the web site www.thepostemail.com is making this PUBLIC RECORD court case # 1:11-CV-00402 available so far on line. Heavy copyright statements preclude actual release of what is being revealed there, but be assured THIS IS BIG!....

Taitz presented the ….forensic evidence by printer and graphics experts testifying to the cut and paste fraud and forgery inherent in the long form birth certificate released by the Obama White House during the Bin Laden news cycle.

From the binary-grayscale conflict to dropped pixels to obvious layering,…

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: barrysoetoro; certifigate; eligibility; fraud; naturalborncitizen; orlytaitz; usurper
The drum beat is getting louder. By summer's end we'll see Democrats distancing themselves from the Kenyan.
1 posted on 06/26/2011 8:46:25 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

in before the media matters operatives, other concern trolls etc.


2 posted on 06/26/2011 8:51:51 AM PDT by Jeff Vader (Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

Thank you for posting this as yes, I missed it!


3 posted on 06/26/2011 9:36:42 AM PDT by blueyon (The U. S. Constitution - read it and weep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

That the MSM doesn’t report these developments in no way diminishes the impact of said developments.


4 posted on 06/26/2011 9:51:40 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (I'll have what the gentleman on the floor is drinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
Obama White House has mastered this axiom like none other

Naw, ole Billy boy taught everyone else how to do it...

Mike

5 posted on 06/26/2011 10:01:39 AM PDT by MichaelP (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools ~HS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

sfl


6 posted on 06/26/2011 10:02:39 AM PDT by phockthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; STARWISE

Ping.


7 posted on 06/26/2011 10:03:26 AM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

So when do we get to see the original docs..?


8 posted on 06/26/2011 10:05:48 AM PDT by spokeshave (Obamas approval ratings are so low, Kenyans are accusing him of being born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
Rule Number One in dealing with conmen:
Never give a conman credit for ANYTHING! Aka "Nothing, No Way, No How, No When!"
This is a extremely important rule. NEVER doubt it.
9 posted on 06/26/2011 10:08:23 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

obama? he’s as elusive as Robert Denby. (MST3K reference)


10 posted on 06/26/2011 10:50:23 AM PDT by isom35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
Inaccurate title:

"The clever use of timing by the slippery SLIMY Mister Obama CRIMINAL OBOZO"

There, that's better!

11 posted on 06/26/2011 10:56:54 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (The 2012 election is coming. Seems we have MORE TRASH TO REMOVE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

Thanks for finding and posting this interesting article. Nothing had shown up in the Natural Born Citizen keyword for a couple of days and I was becoming concerned!


12 posted on 06/26/2011 2:21:07 PM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius, (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
Tick toc tick toc... Ping.


As we spoke about before, It's starting to get close to that 30 day deadline for the Obama government to file any dispositive motion trying to end the lawsuit. It looks like Obama is going to wait until the last second to respond. I hope he blows off the deadline. I think the Social Security Administration has got nothing that will help Obama...so Obama is hoping for another forgery.


Obama is going to take Lamberth's "scheduling order" past the 30 days by utilizing the "extra time" you spoke about with the weekend, holiday, notified date, et cetera, to the 5th of July. Obama stretching it out because he has bupkis.

13 posted on 06/26/2011 11:19:06 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

well, lawyers notoriously file at the deadline .. but only the most irresponsible among them will just blow off a court ordered deadline. That’s serious business. Deadlines are what keep lawyers awake at night. You could consider deadlines as lawyers’ substitutes for a conscience ;)

However, if they’re smart, they’ll do the equivalent of a Friday night news dump ... just before the govt closes down for the long holiday weekend. NO ONE (except us political junkies) will be paying the least little bit of attention. But it’s not as if it’s be spread all over Page One of the NYT/WaPo whenever it’s filed.

We shall see.


14 posted on 06/26/2011 11:37:58 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Red, I replied to your post to me before reading the article. It’s got a few factual errors. To put it mildly.

The Lamberth order was issued 6/1. Obama’s speech on the Afghan withdrawal was three weeks later on 6/22 (not the same 24 hour news cycle).

The motion to strike was filed by SSA and if it were *granted* it would be a win for them. As it is, it was (as you know) granted in part, denied in part. (so it could be claimed a ‘win’ by either or both sides).

From what I recall, Judge Lamberth doesn’t authorize proceeding until the 2 ordered documents (amended/redacted complaint and dispositive motion) are filed which we agree will be no later than 7/5. Then he will have to publish a decision on the motion, grant or deny. If he denies, then she can proceed. If he grants, she will appeal.

Contrary to the way this article is written, granting a motion to strike is not in Dr. Tatiz’s favor.

And, as I explained a while back, SSA did not miss a filing deadline yet. The notion that they did is based on not understanding the time frame for the govt to answer a complaint after being properly served.

Given this many errors in the extract posted, I am not inclined to follow the link. I’ll wait patiently to see what the govt files by the 5th. And then for Judge Lamberth’s decision.

The REAL story on all of this eligibility question (of which the SSA/FOIA is a part) is the total failure of the MSS to cover any of it at all. She got that right.


15 posted on 06/27/2011 12:07:28 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

Why doesn’t Taitz have this on her website? I can’t find it anywhere that she won the Motion to Strike against the SSA, which would be very big news.


16 posted on 06/27/2011 7:48:36 AM PDT by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

You are wrong. Taitz did file a Motion to Strike on June 15, 2011.


17 posted on 06/27/2011 8:17:03 AM PDT by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ethical

And her motion to strike was granted? What did she move to strike? Their “late” Answer?

If she filed a motion on June 15, I would bet my proverbial bottom dollar it hasn’t even been responded to much less decided yet. The motion to strike that was ruled on is the one filed in May by the SSA. That was a split decision, granted in part, denied in part.

The way motions practice works is that party A files a motion; party B has x days to file an opposition; party A can file a reply brief; then the judge decides. If you think there is any way a June 15 motion has been decided, well, I would beg to differ. There are exceptions, i.e., motions to extend time or certain emergency motions, but I doubt that’s what’s discussed here.


18 posted on 06/27/2011 9:05:00 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
Contrary to the way this article is written, granting a motion to strike is not in Dr. Tatiz’s favor.

The writer Suzanne Eovaldi was called out on her inaccuracies in the comment section of the article. She explained somewhat in replying in the second to last post at the linked website.

From what I recall, Judge Lamberth doesn’t authorize proceeding until the 2 ordered documents (amended/redacted complaint and dispositive motion) are filed which we agree will be no later than 7/5. Then he will have to publish a decision on the motion, grant or deny. If he denies, then she can proceed. If he grants, she will appeal.

And Taitz's did refile the redacted complaints as seen here

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57937959/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-U-S-D-C-D-C-16-Redacted-COMPLAINT-against-MICHAEL-ASTRUE-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-16-0?in_collection=2874577

and here

"http://www.scribd.com/doc/57938217/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-U-S-D-C-DC-17-Redacted-AMENDED-COMPLAINT-against-MICHAEL-ASTRUE-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-17-0?in_collection=2874577

that were filed by the court on the 16th June, and I went looking for the Government filing dated 23rd of May and found them.

Granted by Judge Lamberth:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56109472/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-11-MOTION-to-Strike-1-Complaint-3-RECAP-Amended-Complaint-and-Attached-Exhibits-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-11-0

Denied by Judge Lamberth:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56109277/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-USDC-D-C-10-ANSWER-to-3-Amended-Complaint-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-10-0

The bottom line from the Obama government titled "ANSWER" -

"WHEREFORE having fully answered Plaintiff's First Amendment Complaint, Defendant prays for a judgment dismissing the First Amended Complaint with prejudice and for such further relief as the Court may deem just."

The praying Astrue and Obama?

And the announcement to the court on who is representing Astrue:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56109140/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-USDC-D-C-9-NOTICE-of-Appearance-by-Patrick-George-Nemeroff-Gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-9-0

19 posted on 06/27/2011 2:45:32 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; ethical

Thanks for the links, Red. I downloaded every filing thru the amended/redacted Complaint filed by Dr. Taitz on 6/15 when we started this convo a week or two ago.

Upthread, ethical said there was a motion to strike filed on June 15. I didn’t see that and wonder: Does either of you have a link to that filing?


20 posted on 06/27/2011 3:36:10 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/06/21/motion-to-strike-posted-in-obama-social-security-number-case/

Here is the link to the article. At the bottom the editor has a link to the June 15 Taitz Motion to Strike. It was received or stamped by the Court June 20.


21 posted on 06/27/2011 5:13:22 PM PDT by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ethical

Thank you for the link. You don’t happen to have a copy of the docket she refers to, do you? I.e., where it says an answer was due on May 3?

I ask because, as I’ve discussed with Red Steel before, the Summonses issued by the Clerk in this Court, that have to be served by the plaintiff with the Complaint, clearly state that if the defendant is the US government, the answer or responsive motion is due within sixty (60) days of service, not 20 or 30. That makes the May 23 Answer timely filed.

It is possible that this case is different for some reason. I haven’t seen either the docket or the original Summonses issued in this particular case. But for an answer to be required of the US government within 30 days would put it out of the norm for how cases are conducted in this court.


22 posted on 06/27/2011 8:40:07 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

New docket submission by Obama lawyer Nemeroff with only 1 working day left before the deadline.

“07/01/2011 21[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment by MICHAEL ASTRUE (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E)(Nemeroff, Patrick) (Entered: 07/01/2011)”

The OBot Realist is now in the process of putting this on Scribd.


23 posted on 07/01/2011 2:01:21 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Thanks. Just logged on and was wondering if they’d get it done today before heading out of town for the long weekend, or if they’d wait till the deadline. If it were me, I’d have filed today, too. Who wants to have work hanging over them during a holiday? Looking forward to seeing what’s in the filing. Please ping again when it’s filed.


24 posted on 07/01/2011 2:08:01 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

I’m going to compare this with their earlier denied ‘motion to dismiss’. I’ll give you a ping when it is ready for viewing. :-)


25 posted on 07/01/2011 2:11:26 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
I'm also monitoring the OBots for their reactions about this.

From the head Commie Foggy.

"I don't see a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. :-({|= :((

Mr. Soros will NOT be pleased. "

They are already crying as usual....

26 posted on 07/01/2011 2:15:30 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

Here they are.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59148475/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-USDC-D-C-21-0-MOTION-for-Summary-Judgment-by-MICHAEL-ASTRUE-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-21-0

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59148689/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-USDC-D-C-21-2-2-Memorandum-in-Support-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-21-2

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59148810/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-21-3-3-Text-of-Proposed-Order-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-21-3

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59148953/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-USDC-D-C-21-4-4-RECAP-Exhibit-A-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-21-4

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59149132/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-21-5-5-Exhibit-B-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-21-5

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59149257/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-21-6-6-Exhibit-C-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-21-6

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59149348/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-USDC-D-C-21-7-7-Exhibit-D-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-21-7

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59149469/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-USDC-D-C-21-8-8-Exhibit-E-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-21-8


27 posted on 07/01/2011 3:19:16 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Well, a lot to wade through but looks to me like a bunch of shuck and jive by the Government.

"A court reviews an agency‘s response to a FOIA request de novo.

See 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B).

Courts accord agency affidavits ―a presumption of good faith, which cannot berebutted by purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other 5 documents."


It is not "purely speculative " as much research has been put forth and logical conclusions have been made. There's plenty for any judge to authorize a subpoena for search if this was an ordinary criminal case OBots, but we're dealing with the foxes guarding the hen house in this matter.

28 posted on 07/01/2011 3:37:40 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

In Exhibit number 4, the government displayed Taitz’s bank routing number and account. That’s more an egregious invasion of privacy than what the Obama government is hiding than that SSA application if it exists.


29 posted on 07/01/2011 3:47:37 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Thanks, Red Steel. I’ve downloaded and will read (eventually, am rather swamped right now).

Did scribd download (or upload) the document #21-1 which would be the “statement of material facts not in dispute?.”


30 posted on 07/01/2011 3:52:17 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

the doc I’m missing is #21-3, not 21-3. sorry.


31 posted on 07/01/2011 3:55:46 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
This one?

21-3

The government wish...

"[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT

This court, having considered defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the memoranda of the parties, and the whole record herein, and being of the opinion that defendant is entitled to summary judgment,It is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s motion is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED.SO ORDERED, this ____ day of _________________________ 2011"

32 posted on 07/01/2011 4:01:29 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
FogButt Foggy quoting the government's motion.

... disclosure [of the Form SS-5] ... would serve no public interest.

LoL. There is much public interest and it would exonerate or implicate Obama. Many public minds want to know.

33 posted on 07/01/2011 4:29:43 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

*Someone* is a poor typist. The missing doc is 21-2, the Statement of Material Facts. Sorry, maybe I got it right this time.


34 posted on 07/01/2011 4:37:08 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson