Press release: Motion for reconsideration filed in DC. For similar behavior as exhibited by Obama and high ranking officials in case at hand, the same judge Royce Lamberth sought previously a criminal prosecution and $300,000 fines against an attorney for Hillary Clinton

Posted on | October 12, 2013 | No Comments

Press Release.
Law Offices of  Orly Taitz
orlytaitzesq.com
Motion for reconsideration filed in DC. For similar behavior as exhibited by Obama and high ranking officials in case at hand, the same judge   Royce  Lamberth sought previously a criminal prosecution and $300,000 fines against an attorney for Hillary Clinton

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603 
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com, orly.taitz@gmail.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE                     § Case 11-cv-402
                             Plaintiff,                        § Hon Judge Lamberth
                                                                   §Chief Judge Presiding       
                   v.                                             §       
                                                                   §    
Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the         §  
     Social Security Administration,          §
                                                                   §   
                                                                        §
                                                                     §      
                             Respondent                             §

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 10.09.2013 ORDER, AS THE ORDER WAS ISSUED IN ERROR

ARGUMENT

In June 2013 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration under Statute 60B2,6.
The court made an error of fact and stated that the motion had to be filed within a year from the final judgment. The court did not notice that the motion was filed under both clauses 2 and 6 of Statute 60Bb. The court considered only  60 B2, which is supposed to be filed within 1 year, however the court did not consider 60B6 part of the motion, which does not have any time limitation.

RULE 60. RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER

(a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court’s leave.
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) ANY OTHER REASON THAT JUSTIFIES RELIEF.
(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.
(1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.

Motion for Reconsideration under 60B6 can be filed at any time, there is no time limitation,  only 60B 1,2, 3 have a year limitation. 60B6 Motion for reconsideration can be filed 10 years from the final order or a 100 years after the final order, as long as it serves justice, as long as it is “inequitable to permit a judgment to stand.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b); Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 202 (1950) (Black, J., dissenting). The case at hand deals with the fact that Barack Obama is occupying the position of the U.S. President by fraud and using fabricated IDs as a basis of his identity and basis of his legitimacy for the U.S. Presidency. Extraordinary circumstance justifies FRCP 60B6 Ackermann v. United
States, 340 U.S. 193, 71 S.Ct. 209, 95 L.Ed. 207 (1950). Usurpation of the U.S. Presidency represents an extraordinary circumstance which justifies granting a Motion for Reconsideration under FRCP 60B6. As a matter of fact, this is the most extraordinary circumstance in the history of this nation. Any time evidence surfaces, which can assist the court in adjudication of the matter on the merits and in stopping  the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency, it has to be considered, as it serves Justice. Not considering such evidence not only will not serve justice, but would constitute treason against the United States of America. Plaintiff hopes that this court will not commit treason against the United States of America by covering up the usurpation of the position of the U.S. President and Commander in Chief  by Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barack (Barry) Soebarkah (Hereinafter “Obama”) with the aid of fabricated IDs and, in the case at hand, by using a stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 of Harrison(Harry) J. Bounel, born in 1890.
In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co 370 U.S. 626 (1962)., the plaintiff challenged the court’s 41(b) sua sponte motion. The Court recognized that when a court exercises its inherent power under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, it may do so without informing the party adversely affected by such a motion and not be in derogation of the due process clause. [T]he availability of a corrective remedy such as is provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)—which authorizes the reopening of cases in which final orders have been inadvisedly [sic] entered—renders the lack of prior notice of less consequence. Petitioner never sought to avail himself of the escape hatch provided by Rule 60(b).
Additionally, some courts have held that Rule 60(b) motions apply in habeas
corpus proceedings, liberating the challenging party from the strictures of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.11 Rule 60(b), therefore, has very powerful strategic and substantive implications, albeit in limited
circumstances.
The Motion for Reconsideration  at hand revolves around the Connecticut Social Security number of Harry Bounel, which was fraudulently used by Barack Obama in his tax returns. Obama posted his 2009 tax returns, did not flatten the PDF file and full Social Security number that he is using became easily available to the whole nation. This number failed both E-Verify and SSNVS. Plaintiff provided this court with evidence that the original owner of  the SSN xxx-xx-4425, which is currently being use by Obama, was  born in 1890. This information came from sworn affidavits of licensed investigators Susan Daniels and Neil Sankey.  This court originally denied the appeal seeking the release of SS-5, application for the Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 which was originally issued to the individual born in 1890 and later fraudulently used by Barack Obama.
In 2013 Taitz  received a sworn affidavit of an investigator Albert Hendershot, who authenticated a report by Merlyns information systems, showing that SSN xxx-xx-4425 is listed in Merlyns information systems as one being used by Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel and Barack Obama. In 2011 U.S. Census Bureau released  1940 census results which showed that there is only one Harry Bounel, who resided in 1940 in Bronx NY and who was 50 years old at a time, which means that he was born in 1890, 123 years ago.
Additionally, Taitz provided this court with  SSA(Social Security administration ) “120 year rule”, which states that individuals who were born 120 years ago or earlier, are considered to be extremely aged individuals and the SSA is obligated to release their SS-5 even without a death certificate. Since only two individuals used this SSN, Obama and Bounel, and SSNVS and E-Verify show that the number was not issued to Obama, by  process of elimination it is clear that it was issued to Bounel, who was born 123 years ago and SSA wrongfully denied FOIA request by Taitz for his SS-5, as he is an extremely aged individual and the SS-5 has to be released, consideration of privacy cannot be used.
Second extraordinary circumstance, which justifies granting this Motion for Reconsideration under 60B6, over a year after the final judgment, is Fraud, Obstruction of Justice, Perjury and possibly Treason committed by Dawn Wiggins, Deputy Chief FOIA officer for Social Security administration, whose sworn testimony the defense used as a basis for their motion to dismiss.  While Taitz did not have an Affidavit from Albert Hendershot until 2013, did not have the name of Bounel, did not have his age and did not know that SSA was obligated to release his SS-5 under the “120 year rule”, Wiggins had all of this information in 2011 when the case was filed and when she fraudulently claimed that the SS-5 for xxx-xx-4425 cannot be released due to consideration of privacy . She had in front of her Bounel’s SS-5 for xxx-xx-4425, she knew in 2011 that Bounel  was born in 1890, she knew of SSA 120 year rule and she knew that she had no right to use the excuse of privacy in denying the production of SS-5. Wiggins acted with malice, in her zeal to cover up crime committed by Obama, she defrauded this honorable court, committed perjury, engaged in obstruction of justice and possibly treason.
Taitz would like to remind Honorable Judge Lamberth that in and around December , 1994, he sanctioned White House aide Ira Magaziner, who worked for President Clinton and committed fraud in his sworn affidavit submitted to Judge Lamberth and ordered to  pay sanctions of nearly $300,000 because of the White House and Justice Department’s “dishonest” and “reprehensible” conduct in failing to reveal to the court key information about the health-care-reform task force headed by first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. APPS, et al. v. Clinton, 813 F. Supp. (D.D.C. 1993)
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said the government should pay $285,864 for the conduct of its lawyers in handling a lawsuit filed by a doctors group while the first lady was working on health-care reform during President Clinton’s first term.
“It is clear that the decisions here were made at the highest levels of government, and the government itself is – and should be – accountable when its officials run amok,” id. Further, Your Honor referred this case to Attorney General Janet Reno seeking a special prosecutor and to Eric Holder, who was at a time U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, to seek criminal prosecution. Holder refused to prosecute Magaziner. Ironically, now, some 16 years later, we see another U.S. President, his aides and possibly the same  Eric Holder defrauding the nation and courts not only in relation to yet another health care reform, but in relation to the very identity, legitimacy and citizenship of the putative President.
Fraud Committed by Wiggins is much more egregious, as she was engaged in a de facto RICO, in a scheme to defraud the court and the nation as a whole and to cover up Obama’s use of a stolen Social Security number and his use of fabricated IDs.
Due to flagrant error this court should reconsider and grant the Motion for Reconsideration.
Public concern not only warrants consideration, it dictates an urgent, immediate reconsideration as National Security is at stake and a 16 trillion U.S. economy is at stake.
Further, this court did not grant requested Judicial Notice, stating that it needs notarized documents for such judicial notice. However, yet again, due to the fact that Plaintiff is bringing forward a complaint dealing with fraud committed by an individual sitting in the White House, numerous agencies of the U.S. government are refusing to cooperate, often documents are disappearing or being falsified. The only way to obtain a requested certified copy,  is for it to be requested by the court itself.
As such, Plaintiff is requesting this court to sign attached proposed orders directing following agencies and officials of the U.S. Government to certify attached documents:
1. Order/ subpoena to John H. Thompson, Director of the  U.S. Census, to furnish within ten days of receipt of this order, a certified copy of the attached page of the U.S. Census, Population schedule, SD 24, ED No 3-1199, Sheet No-13B, Enumerated April 16, 1940, State-New York, County- the Bronx, New York City, Ward of the city 7A-D showing Harry Bounel residing in Bronx, NY and being 50 years old in 1940.
2. Order to Denis McDonough, White House Chief of Staff ,  to provide within ten days from the receipt of this order a certified copy of the electronic computer file of the attached Form 709, from Barack Obama’s 2009 tax return, in the exact form as it was posted on Whitehouse.gov on April 15, 2010 at 11:11:29 prior to alteration of the file which was done the same day, April 15, 2010 at 6:17:52PM

3. Order to the Commissioner of  Social Security Administration to provide certification of 2010 “120 year rule”, which was published by the Chief FOIA officer of the SSA in 2011.
4.   Order to the Commissioner of Social Security to provide a certified copy of  SSNVS  report attached herein, which shows that Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, which was used by Obama in his tax returns and made public by posting on WhiteHouse.gov on April 15, 2010 at 11:15:29 AM, was never assigned by the SSA to Barack Obama.


Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
10.11.2013