CA – Dummett v Bowen – Appeals Court Confirms

Bowen to recover cost… Non-published opinion here

Disposition
Dummett et al. v. Bowen
Case Number C073763
Description: Affirmed in full
Date: 07/21/2014
Status: Final
The judgment is affirmed. Bowen shall recover her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
Publication Status: Signed Unpublished
Author:     Robie, Ronald B.
Participants: Duarte, Elena J. (Concur)
Blease, Coleman A. (Concur)
Case Citation: none 

CA – Taitz v Obama – Appeal rehearing denied, case complete

Another success… Noone even showed up as Orly failed to properly serve them. Not that it mattered, Orly, once again managed to lose a case to an empty chair.

4th Appellate District Division 3

Docket (Register of Actions)
Taitz v. Obama et al.
Case Number G047746

10/23/2013 Cause argued and submitted. Merits. Cause called. Appellant Orly Taitz argued in propria persona. No appearance by respondent. Cause submitted.

10/31/2013 Opinion filed. (Signed Unpublished) Affirmed. Ikola Fybel Thompson

11/13/2013 Returned document for non-conformance. aplt faxed a motion for reconsideration received by fax on 11/13/13, not a fax file document thus no action will be taken by this court. ( Aplt faxed over motion twice to the court both fax rejected ).

11/14/2013 Rehearing petition filed. filed by aplt Orly Taitz.

11/14/2013 Order on motion filed. Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the order on appeal received on November 13, 2013 is DEEMED a petition for rehearing. The clerk of this court is ordered to file the petition for rehearing forthwith.

11/18/2013 Order denying rehearing petition filed. THE COURT:* The petition for rehearing is DENIED. Ikola/Fybel/ Thompson

01/02/2014 Remittitur issued.

01/02/2014 Case complete.

CA – Grinols v Obama – The follies continue

Poor Orly, when asked if she would consent to a 30 day extension for the defendants to file their response, she said that she would consent, if they would consent to forwarding her complaints to the criminal division or to a Grand Jury…

The defense filed a notice with the court that they had asked Orly and that:

I discussed this request with Orly Taitz, counsel for Plaintiffs- Appellants, who stated that she would object to the request for a 30-day extension of time unless the “evidence of criminal activity” contained in appellants’ papers were forwarded to the criminal department of the California Attorney General’s office.

That was quite funny and now the Court has granted the motion for extension.

Orly, still clueless as to what happened:

They noted that I requested to transfer the evidence to the criminal department, but there is no proof any evidence was actually transferred to the criminal division.
Given her latest misguided attempts to get FOIA responses from Hawaii, related to the unfortunate death of Dr Fuddy, I surely hope that the courts wisen up to her ‘professionalism’.
After releasing the unredacted birth certificate of Johanna, causing significant damage to the Cold Case Posse’s claims, she is now diverting attention to Fuddy. Soros will be happy ;-)

CA – Noonan v Bowen – Educating the confused

In their reply brief to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, 3rd Appellate district, it is ‘argued’ that:

RESPONDENT OBAMA is as much a foreigner as he is a U.S. citizen, if in fact he is one. It cannot be legally stated that OBAMA is without foreign national citizenship/allegiance.

While it is true that under British Law, our President may have been born a Citizen of the UK, or one of its variants, it is also clear that under US law, he was born on US soil and therefore a US citizen and natural born. See for instance US v Wong Kim Ark.

Thus the claim that he is disqualified because of English law is somewhat outrageous and ignores the fact that our Country separated itself from it several centuries ago. As to claims that he was adopted by Soetoro, again, these unfounded assertions have no relevance to the nationality of our President.

As to the term allegiance, it needs to be properly understood in its legal context and there is no doubt that he has no foreign allegiance by any meaning of the word.

Of course, this is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the dismissal of the petition for writ of mandamus.

CA – Taitz v Obama – Another fine mess

The Court of Appeal in California has issued a ruling in Orly’s appeal of Taitz v Obama.  Orly, recently, presented her ‘case’ in front of the judges, and in absence of the three defendants, and predictably lost.

The justices documented the many failures in Orly’s attempts, including her failure to properly request that a court reporter be present, and her failures to present the court with the relevant rulings.

What a mess… Which reminds we why we ‘love’ our dentist friend…

Read the non-published decision here…

Dr Conspiracy has his own thoughts on these matters

Finally, her appeal was totally botched in that she provided reams of rubbish about Obama, but failed to provide copies of transcripts and lower court orders which are the fundamental paperwork that must be filed with an appeal.

CA – Taitz v Obama – Supplemental Brief

Supplemental Brief

Orly has shown herself to be totally clueless about the legal system, and how to properly name and serve the relevant parties.

In her initial filing, Orly totally forgot to name and serve Occidental, thus forever losing the opportunity to appeal these issues. She tries desperately to introduce new evidence in an Appeal, something she claimed was impossible in the Alabama case… Hilarious how quickly she forgets her own insights when it comes to her own failings.

So now we have her attempting to introduce ‘new evidence’ which however already was available to her in 2008. She is trying to include Occidental and its lawyer, but still fails to follow the Court’s rules.

Can we predict another failure by our dentist friend Orly? While it is hilarious to observe the Cold Case Posse struggling with the Xerox workflow, observing Orly’s follies never turns old..

CA – Taitz v. Obama et al. – Docket

Orly is still struggling with her filing and now the court has continued the case.

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.

Docket

Has the court noticed all the problems with the case :-) Such as the failure to properly join appellees? What a mess

CA – Taitz v Obama – Uh oh

Another fail and worse, she has made several other failures and the court may not be impressed. Let me point out that the appellate court does not know default and will rule based on the lower court’s findings. It did not need any input from the defendants as the Court will have no trouble accepting the lower court’s decision

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

CA – Taitz v Obama – Weird document

Okay, who has pranked our dentist/lawyer friend? Orly believes that since Obama et al refused to respond to her appeal, they are now in default… Poor Orly… Or course, new information cannot be raised on appeal and yet.. Hey wait, did she not lecture Zullo on this? Orly is so clueless… Soooo funny… And really, some third hand hearsay…

IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Case G047746
Superior Court Ca5e Number
30-2012-00582135

Taitz v Obama, Feinstein, Emken

NOTICE BY APPELLANT OF APPELLEES FAILURE TO FILE APPELLEES BRIEF.

NEW INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN, IMPORTANT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE CASE,

Continue reading

CA – Grinols v Electoral College – Appeal Dismissed

In Grinols, Orly was appealing a decision to deny a motion for default. The appeals court has ruled…ffg

Grinols appeal dismissed!

Filed order (MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, RONALD M. GOULD and PAUL J. WATFORD) A review of the record and appellants’€™ response to the May 15, 2013 order to show cause demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Bird v. Reese, 875 F.2d 256 (9th Cir. 1989) (order) (order denying a motion for default judgment is not a final appealable order); FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co, 498 U.S. 269, 276 (1991) (premature appeal not cured by subsequent entry of judgment where appellant could not reasonably believe order was final or appealable). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [8676059] (WL)

 

CA – Judd v Obama – Appeal – Opening Brief

AnitaMarie at the Fogbow announced

Doc C just posted Taitz’s Opening Brief. His summary: It’s crap. :lol:
He’s being very kind.

Appellants’ Opening Brief

I cannot believe the horrible brief. It starts off with a reference to 28 USC § 1295 Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Remember, she is filing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Let me explain, the US Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit

[...] is a United States court of appeals headquartered in Washington, D.C.. The court was created by Congress with passage of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, which merged the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate division of the United States Court of Claims, making the judges of the former courts into circuit judges.[1][2]

The correct reference is of course 28 USC § 1291 Final decisions of district courts. How could a lawyer make such a fundamental error?… Well, remember, this is Orly..

CA – Taitz v Obama – COA – Opening Brief

CASE G 047746

IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

__________________________________________________________________ORLY TAITZ

APPELLANT

V

BARACK OBAMA, DIANE FEINSTEIN, ELOZABETH EMKEN

APPELLEES

________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

__________________________________________________________________

ORLY TAITZ

APPELLANT PRO SE

Continue reading

CA – Taitz v Obama – Appeal – Docket

4th Appellate District Division 3

Taitz v. Obama et al.
Case Number G047746

Original Case – Taitz v Occidental

Trial Court Name: Orange County Superior Court – Central
County: Orange
Trial Court Case Number: 30-2012-00582135
Trial Court Judge: Margines, Charles
Trial Court Judgment Date: 11/01/2012

Scheduled actions

Description Due Date Notes
Respondent’s brief. 05/30/2013
Respondent’s brief. 05/30/2013
Respondent’s brief. 05/30/2013

Continue reading