Posted by By GeorgeM at 30 January, at 17 : 08 PM
Print
Forwarded by Bill Van Allen. By the way, Astrue plans to leave the office of Social Security Director next month.
Case Selection Page
Case Number
Title |
Opening Date |
Last Docket
Entry |
Originating Case Number
Origin |
11-5304
Orly Taitz v. Michael Astrue |
10/31/2011 |
01/30/2013
09:52:50 |
0090-1 : 1:11-cv-00402-RCL
United States District Court for the District of Columbia |
|
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-5304 |
Docketed: 10/31/2011
Termed: 05/25/2012
|
| Nature of Suit: 2895 Freedom of Information Act of 1974 |
| Orly Taitz v. Michael Astrue |
|
| Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Columbia |
|
| Fee Status: Fee Paid |
|
|
| Case Type Information: |
| 1) Civil US |
| 2) United States |
| 3) |
|
|
| Originating Court Information: |
| District: 0090-1 : 1:11-cv-00402-RCL |
Lead: 1:11-cv-00402-RCL
|
| Trial Judge: Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Judge |
|
| Date Filed: 02/16/2011 |
|
|
|
| Date Order/Judgment: |
Date NOA Filed: |
|
|
|
| 08/30/2011 |
10/25/2011 |
|
|
|
|
| 03/16/2012 |
|
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1364625] to motion for summary affirmance [1353593-2](Reply to Response by Mail and Response to Cross Motion due on 03/29/2012) combined with a MOTION FILED [STYLED AS "MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANT"] by Orly Taitz for summary reversal [Service Date: 03/15/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11-5304] |
| 04/27/2012 |
|
MOTION filed [1371429] by Orly Taitz for default judgment. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 05/07/2012) [Service Date: 04/24/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11-5304] |
| 05/25/2012 |
|
PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1375820] denying motion for default judgment [1371429-2]; denying motion for summary reversal [1364625-2]; granting motion for summary affirmance [1353593-2], withholding issuance of the mandate. Before Judges: Rogers, Griffith and Kavanaugh. [11-5304] |
| 06/04/2012 |
|
PETITION filed [1377943] by Appellant Orly Taitz for rehearing en banc. [Service Date: 05/31/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 16-20. [11-5304] |
| 06/20/2012 |
|
SUPPLEMENT [1380221] to petition for rehearing en banc [1377943-2] filed by Orly Taitz [Service Date: 06/18/2012] [11-5304] |
| 07/30/2012 |
|
MOTION filed [1387271] by Orly Taitz to recall mandate (Response to Motion served by mail due on 08/09/2012) [Service Date: 07/26/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11-5304] |
| 08/02/2012 |
|
CLERK’S ORDER filed [1387293] Upon consideration of appellant’s motion to recall the mandate, it is ORDERED that the motion be dismissed as moot. No mandate has issued in this case. A petition for rehearing en banc remains pending before the court. The mandate issued July 24, 2012, in No. 11-5306, Taitz v. Ruemmler, where no petition for rehearing was received by the court. [1387271-2] [11-5304] |
| 08/09/2012 |
|
PER CURIAM ORDER, En Banc, filed [1388336] denying petition for rehearing en banc [1377943-2] Before Judges: Sentelle, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Griffith and Kavanaugh. [11-5304] |
| 08/29/2012 |
|
MANDATE ISSUED to Clerk, District Court [11-5304] |
| 01/29/2013 |
|
MOTION filed [STYLED AS "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DUE TO NEW EVIDENCE AND NEW DECISIONS"] [1417882] by Orly Taitz to recall mandate (Response to Motion served by mail due on 02/11/2013) [Service Date: 01/28/2013 by US Mail] Pages: 11-15 with attachments. [11-5304] |
|
Ballot News Blog, Washington, D.C.
Too bad Orly predicated her motion for reconsideration on Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule applies to the trial courts, not the federal courts of appeal. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure govern cases pending in the appellate courts.
But who needs rules anyway, right?
Jeremy, 3 months ago
That’s true, AKA “Obama” and enablers rarely follow the rules.
GeorgeM, 3 months ago
Why is everyone in the birther community surprised that Michael Astrue is leaving his position? He was appointed to a six-year term, and that term is now up. Wouldn’t want him to usurp that office from his successor to the post, now would we?
Jeremy, 3 months ago
Not aware that anyone is surprised. Very few Obama appointees seem to want to stay on in this toxic administration. Does that surprise anyone in the obot community?
GeorgeM, 3 months ago