Replies

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