Orly Taitz has a date in court tomorrow (Oct 23) before the California Court of Appeals. The dismissal of the case Taitz v. Obama is what is being appealed. The appeal has been dismissed and reinstated several times (see docket below) as Taitz struggled to file her paperwork on time. Taitz v. Obama is the case where Taitz was assessed $4,000 in costs by Judge Marginis for an abusive subpoena issued to Occidental College. As far as I can tell, defendants Barack Obama, Elizabeth Emken and Diane Feinstein did not file briefs in the appeal. Taitz published her brief in a press release [link to Taitz web site] last May.
Taitz alleged massive election fraud because many California computer voter records had incomplete information on the voters; also Taitz alleges that Barack Obama committed fraud by running for President without eligibility (social-security number, Selective Service registration, Indonesian citizenship, etc.)
Earlier today, the California 4th Appellate District Division 3 issued an order regarding a request to photograph the hearing:
A media request to photograph, record or broadcast (Judicial Council Form MC-500) has been filed by On Second Thought TV regarding oral argument of the above proceeding, scheduled for October 23, 2013, at 9:00 am. The request is GRANTED, subject to the conditions in California Rules of Court, rule 1.150, AND the following additional conditions: 1. All media hookups will take place in the parking lot of the courthouse, located on the west side of Ross Street, immediately to the north of the courthouse facility. 2. No cameras of any kind are permitted in the courtroom. 3. No still pictures may be taken inside the courtroom. 4. No interruption of the court proceedings is allowed. 5. All interviews must be conducted outside of the courthouse facility.
Independent observers are reported to be planning to attend the hearing and maybe after that we can find out what this is all about.
Here is the docket entry as of today:
| Date | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 12/10/2012 | Notice of appeal lodged/received. | by aplt Orly Taitz – also appealing date 11/7/12 |
| 12/10/2012 | Default notice sent-appellant notified per rule 8.100(c). | |
| 12/14/2012 | Received default notice 8.121(a) designation not filed. Dated: | 12/14/12 |
| 12/24/2012 | Filing fee. | by aplt |
| 12/24/2012 | Appellant ‘s notice designating record on appeal filed in trial court on: | 12/24/12 – proceeding by 8.124 w/RT |
| 12/27/2012 | Default letter sent; no case information statement filed. | |
| 12/28/2012 | Default notice vacated. | Notice of compliance re designation filed |
| 12/28/2012 | Default notice received-appellant notified per rule 8.140(a)(1). | filed 12/27/12 – re need amended designaton with proof of service: designation filed is unclear, must clarify documents requested and include proof of service. |
| 12/28/2012 | Received copy of: | Superior Court notice of inability to provide a reporter’s transcript dated 12/27/12; there is no record on any reporter present on 10/29/12 & 11/01/12. |
| 01/15/2013 | Received copy of: | aplt’s notice of failure to comply with designation (filing of unclear designation and incomplete proof of service) |
| 01/15/2013 | Appeal dismissed per rule 8.140(b). | THE COURT: Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.140(b)(1), the appeal filed December 3, 2012, is DISMISSED for appellant’s failure to designate the record on appeal in a timely manner and for failure to file a Civil Case Information Statement pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.100(g), after notice that appellant was in default.. Appellant is advised that this dismissal will become final as to this court 30 days after the date of this order, at which time this court will lose the power to vacate, reconsider or modify it. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(1).) |
| 01/24/2013 | Motion for relief from default filed. | By aplt, mtn to reinstate appeal |
| 01/24/2013 | To court. | Aplt’s mtn for relief from default and to reinstate appeal. |
| 01/28/2013 | Order filed. | On January 15, 2013, this court filed an order dismissing the instant appeal because of appellant’s failure to designate the record on appeal and for failure to file a Civil Case Information Statement, after notice that appellant was in default. On January 24, 2013, appellant filed a motion to reinstate the appeal. The motion is DENIED without prejudice. The motion is defective for the following reasons, among others: 1) The motion purports to include appellant’s notice designating the record on appeal but the notice is internally inconsistent in that appellant has failed to indicate which of the alternative methods she elects to use for the record on appeal. Instead, appellant has checked each of the three alternative forms: a clerk’s transcript under rule 8.122, an appendix under rule 8.124 and the original superior court file under rule 8.128. Much of the remainder of the document, which consists of handwritten notations, is illegible. 2) The motion purports to include appellant’s Case Information Statement, but the Case Information Statement is incomplete. Appellant has failed to complete section A regarding Appealability, section C regarding Bankruptcy or Other Stay, and section E regarding Service Requirements. 3) Appellant’s motion to reinstate the appeal does not contain a proper proof of service. The clerk of this court is directed to include with this order a copy of Judicial Council Form APP-009-INFO "Information Sheet for Proof of Service (Court of Appeal)." Specifically, appellant’s proof of service by mail on all court documents must include a statement, made under penalty of perjury, by the person doing the serving (who is not a party). Among other requirements, the proof of service also must state the name of the document being served, the server’s home or business address, and the city and state from which the document is being mailed. Appellant is advised that this dismissal will become final as to this court on February 14, 2013, at which time this court will lose the power to vacate, reconsider or modify it. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(1).) |
| 01/31/2013 | Motion filed. | to reinstate the appeal (CCIS attached to the motion) |
| 01/31/2013 | To court. | Aplt.s’ motion to reinstate the appeal |
| 01/31/2013 | Filed letter from: | Dr. Taitz dated January 18, 2013. Letter deemed filed as of 1-18-2013 and entered on the docket sheet this date. |
| 02/04/2013 | Default notice vacated. | Appellant’s motion to vacate the dismissal, reinstate the appeal, and be relieved from default is GRANTED. The order of dismissal is VACATED and the appeal is REINSTATED. Orange County Superior Court, Appellate Division is directed to accept the designation of the record on appeal, provided the designation is presented within 10 days of the date of this order. If appellant fails to comply, and the Superior Court notifies this court of the non-compliance, the appeal may be dismissed. The clerk of this court is DIRECTED to file forthwith the civil case information statement attached to appellant’s motion to reinstate the appeal. |
| 02/04/2013 | Civil case information statement filed. | |
| 02/05/2013 | Appellant ‘s notice designating record on appeal filed in trial court on: | |
| 02/05/2013 | Appellant ‘s notice designating record on appeal filed in trial court on: | from superior court |
| 02/06/2013 | Proceeding by 8.124 – no reporter’s transcript. | |
| 02/06/2013 | 70 day letter sent (rule 8.124). | |
| 04/15/2013 | Requested – extension of time | Appellant’s appendix and opening brief filed. Requested for 04/30/2013 By 14 Day(s) |
| 04/16/2013 | Granted – extension of time. | Appellant’s appendix and opening brief filed. Due on 04/30/2013 By 14 Day(s) |
| 04/30/2013 | Appellant’s appendix and opening brief filed. | Plaintiff and Appellant: Orly Taitz Pro Per 1 vol appendix |
| 05/02/2013 | Filed proof of service. | Amended proof of service for aao |
| 05/02/2013 | Certification of Interested Entities or Persons filed. | for aao |
| 06/04/2013 | Respondent notified re failure to file respondent’s brief. | As to all resps |
| 06/21/2013 | Received fax informational copy of: | By aplt, "RECEIVED ONLY" notice by aplt of appellees faiure to file appellees brief. Rejected per court order of 06/25/13 |
| 06/24/2013 | Original entry stricken – sequence no. not removed. | Notice by appellant of appellees failure to file appellees brief (original to faxed copy) Stricken per court order of 06/25/13 |
| 06/25/2013 | Case on ready list; no reply by respondent to notice re failure to file brief. | Defendant and Respondent: Barack Obama Defendant and Respondent: Elizabeth Emken Defendant and Respondent: Diane Feinstein |
| 06/25/2013 | No brief filed by respondent after 8.220(a)(2) notice. | |
| 06/25/2013 | Case fully briefed. | |
| 06/25/2013 | Argument letter sent. | |
| 06/25/2013 | Order filed. | On June 21, 2013, appellant submitted a faxed notice regarding respondents’ brief having not been filed and also included was a declaration of new facts that appellant believes will weigh in favor of granting her appeal. On June 24, 2013, appellant filed the original to the fax received on June 21, 2013. The clerk of this court is DIRECTED to reject the fax received June 21, 2013, and to strike the filing of the document filed June 24, 2013, and return forthwith both documents to appellant. The court is aware of the status of respondents’ briefs and the declaration of new facts is not part of the record on appeal. |
| 07/01/2013 | Request for oral argument filed by: | Aplt Orly Taitz in propria persona. |
| 07/26/2013 | Case briefed and on assignment panel. | |
| 08/12/2013 | Calendar notice sent. Calendar date: | Thursday, 9-26-13 at 9:00 a.m. |
| 08/30/2013 | Order filed. | On the court’s own motion and for good cause, the matter previously calendared for September 26, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., is CONTINUED to the October 2013 oral argument calendar. Notice will be given of the new date and time. |
| 09/10/2013 | Calendar notice sent. Calendar date: | Wednesday, 10-23-13 at 9:00 a.m. |
| 09/20/2013 | Motion filed. | Aplt’s motion for leave of court to file supplemental brief (brief and 1 CD submitted with motion received only). |
| 09/20/2013 | To court. | Aplt’s motion for leave to file supplemental brief |
| 09/20/2013 | Order filed. | Appellant’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief and attached CD with newly discovered information is DENIED. |
| 10/22/2013 | Order filed. | A media request to photograph, record or broadcast (Judicial Council Form MC-500) has been filed by On Second Thought TV regarding oral argument of the above proceeding, scheduled for October 23, 2013, at 9:00 am. The request is GRANTED, subject to the conditions in California Rules of Court, rule 1.150, AND the following additional conditions: 1. All media hookups will take place in the parking lot of the courthouse, located on the west side of Ross Street, immediately to the north of the courthouse facility. 2. No cameras of any kind are permitted in the courtroom. 3. No still pictures may be taken inside the courtroom. 4. No interruption of the court proceedings is allowed. 5. All interviews must be conducted outside of the courthouse facility. |
Orly Taitz is one of Orange County’s most notorious moochers. She lives off the pension money of her flying monkeys and her entire “career” as a vexatious litigant is subsidized by those of us whose taxes go towards supporting state and federal courts. This frivolous appeal of this frivolous case will probably wind up costing the Court of Appeals $15K or more in labor and overhead by the time it’s over. Nobody benefits from our socialized justice system more than those who abuse it, and that includes every single birfer who has ever darkened a courthouse doorway.
Weren’t there more Taitz sanctions due “any day now”? Whatever happened to the case where it was said she might rack up six figures in sanctions and defendant’s costs?
That case was Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi. There are fully-briefed pending motions to dismiss from the Hawaii defendants, to dismiss from the Secretary of State of Mississippi, and for judgement on the pleadings from the Democratic Party of Mississippi. A hearing on those motions was held 16-Nov-2012. A motion for default judgment by Taitz was denied 19-Feb-2013. The Judge threatened Taitz with sanctions if she didn’t stop filing unredacted social-security numbers. The last docket entry in the case was 18-Jul-2013, an order on the submission of supplemental authority by the Democratic Party (which it appears was not submitted).
Judge Wingate is reputed to be slow, and that’s what we’re seeing. Motions for sanctions would follow disposition of the case proper.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/mississippi/mssdce/3:2012cv00280/78493
I have a hunch, the end result may be this.
On Second Thought TV
http://williamwagener.blogspot.com/
Thanks, Doc. I lost track about all those undead Orly cases.
She is the Zombie of the American court system.
And as we all know, there’s but one way to get rid of zombies.
…Well unless you’re playing by “Return of the Living Dead” rules, then you have to try something completely different.