C H U M A N N
A L L O
O S E N B E R G
, L L P
T T O R N E Y S A T
3 1 0 0 B R I S T O L S T R E E T , S U I T E 4 0 0 C O S T A M E S A , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 2 6 - 7 3 3 3 T E L E P H O N E ( 7 1 4 ) 8 5 0 - 0 2 1 0
Items numbered 1, 2 and 3 are each related to petitions regarding the presidential electionof November of 2008.
Items numbered 4, 5 and 6 are each related to similar Freedom of Information Act claims.
This matter involved a breach of lease agreement as to property owned by Ms. Taitz’sdental practice.-2-
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER DATED AUGUST 12, 2011
I.Cases Filed by Defendant, Orly Taitz, on Her Own Behalf, or onBehalf of Affiliated Entities
Defendant, Orly Taitz has filed seven cases on her own behalf, or on behalf of affiliated entities, in the last three years, as follows:1.
Taitz v. Dunn
, Orange County Superior Court, Case No.30-2010-00381664
Taitz v. Bowen
, California Supreme Court, Case No. S1843843.
Taitz v. Obama
, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:10-CV-00151-RCL4.
Taitz v. Astrue
, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:11-CV-00402-RCL
Taitz v. Ruemmler
, United States District Court for the Districtof Columbia, Case No. 1:11-CV-01421-RCL6.
Taitz v. Fuddy
, Circuit Court for the First Circuit Honolulu,Hawaii, Case No. CIVIL 11-1-1731-087.
Medical Dental v. Pierson
, Orange County Superior Court, CaseNo. 30-2010-00367447
Furthermore, in the spirit of full disclosure as ordered by this Court,Defendant, Orly Taitz has also sought to intervene by way of filing Motions toIntervene in two cases, as follows:•
Hornbeck v. Salazar
, United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Louisiana, Case No. 2:10-CV-01663-MLCF-JCW /// ///