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....
Posted on 06/26/2011 8:46:22 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :-)
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....
Here they are.
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
"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.
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.
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?.”
the doc I’m missing is #21-3, not 21-3. sorry.
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"
... 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.
*Someone* is a poor typist. The missing doc is 21-2, the Statement of Material Facts. Sorry, maybe I got it right this time.
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.