Case Summary
Trial Court Case: 30-2012-00582135
Court of Appeal Case: G047746
Division:
Case Caption: Taitz v. Occidental College
Case Type: CV
Filing Date: 12/03/2012
Oral Argument Date/Time:
Cross Referenced Cases:
G045351 Taitz v. Dunn

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).

Taitz v. Occidental College
Case Number G047746

Description Due Date Notes
Record on appeal filed. 03/04/2013
Civil case information statement filed. 12/20/2012
Appeal dismissed per rule 8.100(c). 12/26/2012

Case Caption: Taitz v. Occidental College

(c) Failure to pay filing fee

(1) The reviewing court clerk must promptly notify the appellant in writing if:

(A) The reviewing court receives a notice of appeal without the filing fee required by (b)(1), a certificate of cash payment under (e)(5), or an application for, or order granting, a fee waiver under rule 8.26;

(B) A check for the filing fee is dishonored; or

(C) An application for a waiver under rule 8.26 is denied.

(2) A clerk's notice under (1)(A) or (B) must state that the court may dismiss the appeal unless, within 15 days after the notice is sent, the appellant either:

(A) Pays the fee; or

(B) Files an application for a waiver under rule 8.26 if the appellant has not previously filed such an application.

(3) If the appellant fails to take the action specified in a notice given under (2), the reviewing court may dismiss the appeal, but may vacate the dismissal for good cause.

(Subd (c) amended effective July 1, 2009; previously amended effective January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2008.)

2) Aren't said records protected under US privacy laws?

I have a IANAL question too. If it were her intent to appeal the sanction, wouldn’t she have been required to do so before she became delinquent on paying it? Or did she somehow slip that one under the wire?

Those are basically two separate timelines. Filing a notice of appeal doesn't keep the judgment creditor from collecting on the debt. That would require a stay in the trial court. Usually, such a stay is obtained by putting up a supersedeas bond, which stays collection pending the outcome of the appeal, as well as satisfying the debt if the appeal is denied.

The odds of Orly doing this? Zero.

I'm not sure if she appealed on time, but it would be a separate issue.

I have two questions.

1) Would they even have Obama's records after all these years?

I'm not sure if she appealed on time, but it would be a separate issue.

I don't have the dates in front of me, but her filing the NOA was relatively prompt after the judge dismissed the case.

And, as Irion learned in the 6th Circuit, a sanction order is not a final, appealable order.

I suppose it may languish for a while before being dismissed sua sponte for failure to prosecute, but I am pretty sure Occidental can go forward with collection, should they choose to do so.

IIRC, the trial court dismissed the entire action. (That's when Taitz was bragging she didn't have to pay the sanction because it wasn't referenced in the final order.)

All the other crap she and others seek was destroyed back in the Reagan era.

I recall another member posted the Occidental records retention policy a while ago. No, they have nothing except the grade transcripts. All the other crap she and others seek was destroyed back in the Reagan era.

Neither Obama’s image nor name appear in any Occidental yearbooks or weekly student newspaper for the years he attended. The picture featured on this page is the only one we have of the senator; it was sent in with his Occidental application.

IIRC, the trial court dismissed the entire action. (That's when Taitz was bragging she didn't have to pay the sanction because it wasn't referenced in the final order.)

I don't have the dates in front of me, but her filing the NOA was relatively prompt after the judge dismissed the case.

And, as Irion learned in the 6th Circuit, a sanction order is not a final, appealable order.

So it looks like Taitz is just appealing her sanction.

She failed to properly serve three different people in 3 totally different ways, and had 3 uncorrectable, fatal errors to her petition, resulting in a dismissal with prejudice. HOW can you fuck up that many ways in ONE try?

If there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so.

Those just crack me up. She failed to properly serve three different people in 3 totally different ways, and had 3 uncorrectable, fatal errors to her petition, resulting in a dismissal with prejudice. HOW can you fuck up that many ways in ONE try?