HORNBECK v SALAZAR, et al.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 12:37 am

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 12:56 am

From Orly's site:

Quote:

If you are my supporter and able to come to the oral argument in Pasadena CA on May 2nd or New Orleans, LA, May 11, please come to support me. As I travel alot around the country and airfair in not cheap, I would greatly appreciate if you can help with frequent flyer miles or hotel frequent visitor credits or donations. As the hearing is on May 11 th, I will need to fly on the 10th.

Over/Under for actual court time spent on her motion: 3 minutes (that includes her 2 minutes for whining)

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 1:10 am

Joseph Robidoux III wrote:

From Orly's site:

Quote:

If you are my supporter and able to come to the oral argument in Pasadena CA on May 2nd or New Orleans, LA, May 11, please come to support me. As I travel alot around the country and airfair in not cheap, I would greatly appreciate if you can help with frequent flyer miles or hotel frequent visitor credits or donations. As the hearing is on May 11 th, I will need to fly on the 10th.

Over/Under for actual court time spent on her motion: 3 minutes (that includes her 2 minutes for whining)

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 1:38 am

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

I think you hit on something big.

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

Poor Orly.

LM K · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 1:45 am

MsDaisy wrote:

Orly’s having a orlygasm

Quote:

Great news!!! I was granted oral argument in yet another case, in New Orleans. If you are my supporter in LA or neighboring state, call me at 949-683-5411

Please call me so I can invite myself over for dinner and a stay in the guest bedroom!

Did y'all notice that Orly claims to be representing 200 clients? The number keeps growing and growing. :lol:

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10650

Joseph Robidoux III wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Is she admitted there pro hac vice? Let's hope she flies there and when she doesn't have a sponsoring attorney the court doesn't let her talk.

I think you hit on something big.

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

Poor Orly.

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

LM K · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 1:49 am

Joseph Robidoux III wrote:

From Orly's site:

Quote:

If you are my supporter and able to come to the oral argument in Pasadena CA on May 2nd or New Orleans, LA, May 11, please come to support me. As I travel alot around the country and airfair in not cheap, I would greatly appreciate if you can help with frequent flyer miles or hotel frequent visitor credits or donations. As the hearing is on May 11 th, I will need to fly on the 10th.

Over/Under for actual court time spent on her motion: 3 minutes (that includes her 2 minutes for whining)

She posted this the day before she has to fly to NOLA? #-o

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 2:14 am

LM K wrote:

She posted this the day before she has to fly to NOLA? #-o

No. This was posted April 26 on her website.

Suranis · **Joined:** Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:04 am **Posts:** 5248

Quote:

If you are my supporter and able to come to the oral argument in Pasadena CA on May 2nd or New Orleans, LA, May 11, please come to support me. As I travel alot around the country and airfair in not cheap, I would greatly appreciate if you can help with frequent flyer miles or hotel frequent visitor credits or donations. As the hearing is on May 11 th, I will need to fly on the 10th.

Surely she could have just used the traditional mode of transportation for someone of her class?

Though it true this example does use less makeup than Taitz...

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23557

I won't happen, but I'd love to see 50 supporters (or even more) show up in NOLA to watch her get bitch-slapped in about 3 minutes by yet another corrupt, bought-off federal court... this one a Raygun appointee, who I suspect is no big fan of Obama. $\:D/$

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 11:21 am

Snakes Chaleria on a plane?

Has the world's worst lawyer boarded her plane yet? Can it all be revealed?

When there has been nothing on her malware infested site for 4 hours maybe we can break it to her.

=))

Epectitus · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:55 pm **Posts:** 2357

This is just too delicious.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 12:41 pm

Hey, O'rly.

You on that plane yet, Mme. Chaleria?

Epectitus · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:55 pm **Posts:** 2357

No posts from her all day. I say... I believe she is on a plane.

:-bd

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 4:11 pm

I sure hope Orly Taitz tells us all about her great oral argument tomorrow in this case.

Lola_Getz · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 4:17 pm

Epectitus wrote:

No posts from her all day. I say... I believe she is on a plane.

Got a mental image now of Orly, flying in coach because she's too cheap to shell out for first class (and none of her minions coughed up the frequent flyer miles she asked for), haranguing her seatmate with tales of how she's going to unseat the Usurper and save the Republic.

BFB · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 4:26 pm

So I just re-read her post about this motion, and I'm wondering if any of you legal eagles could say how she came to the conclusion that she was granted oral argument? Is that just assumed with the "Motion set for 5/11/2011 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr." thingy, or does there have to be some definite statement saying oral arguments will be heard. And yes, I did read upthread about the things she was supposed to have done ... I guess what I'm wondering is, how did she come to the conclusion that she should be sitting on a plane now?

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 4:30 pm

BFB wrote:

So I just re-read her post about this motion, and I'm wondering if any of you legal eagles could say how she came to the conclusion that she was granted oral argument? Is that just assumed with the "Motion set for 5/11/2011 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr." thingy, or does there have to be some definite statement saying oral arguments will be heard. And yes, I did read upthread about the things she was supposed to have done ... I guess what I'm wondering is, how did she come to the conclusion that she should be sitting on a plane now?

In the Central District of California (and many other jurisdictions), having a motion set for hearing (you're supposed to self-set in California) means it's on the calendar for oral argument unless the court subsequently orders it off calendar. (That happens a lot with frivolous motions.) So, Taitz assumed it was set for oral argument in New Orleans. She didn't bother to read the local rules (shocker) requiring her to request oral argument. All the court did was set a motion submission date which Taitz decided meant she was getting oral argument. She might have tried to get oral argument, but she's too late now. And winging her way to NOLA. =))

ducktape · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 4:42 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

BFB wrote:

So I just re-read her post about this motion, and I'm wondering if any of you legal eagles could say how she came to the conclusion that she was granted oral argument? Is that just assumed with the "Motion set for 5/11/2011 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr." thingy, or does there have to be some definite statement saying oral arguments will be heard. And yes, I did read upthread about the things she was supposed to have done ... I guess what I'm wondering is, how did she come to the conclusion that she should be sitting on a plane now?

In the Central District of California (and many other jurisdictions), having a motion set for hearing (you're supposed to self-set in California) means it's on the calendar for oral argument unless the court subsequently orders it off calendar. (That happens a lot with frivolous motions.) So, Taitz assumed it was set for oral argument in New Orleans. She didn't bother to read the local rules (shocker) requiring her to request oral argument. All the court did was set a motion submission date which Taitz decided meant she was getting oral argument. She might have tried to get oral argument, but she's too late now. And winging her way to NOLA. =))

Well, this will certainly be interesting when she shows up expecting to argue. So I'm wondering if someone is going to clue her in before tomorrow morning -- for example, if she has arranged a dinner with someone who would know the local rules and save her the embarrassment. Or even if she'll come back to read TFB and wise up?

Doubtful, but tomorrow tells the tale!

BFB · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 4:42 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

BFB wrote:

So I just re-read her post about this motion, and I'm wondering if any of you legal eagles could say how she came to the conclusion that she was granted oral argument? Is that just assumed with the "Motion set for 5/11/2011 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr." thingy, or does there have to be some definite statement saying oral arguments will be heard. And yes, I did read upthread about the things she was supposed to have done ... I guess what I'm wondering is, how did she come to the conclusion that she should be sitting on a plane now?

In the Central District of California (and many other jurisdictions), having a motion set for hearing (you're supposed to self-set in California) means it's on the calendar for oral argument unless the court subsequently orders it off calendar. (That happens a lot with frivolous motions.) So, Taitz assumed it was set for oral argument in New Orleans. She didn't bother to read the local rules (shocker) requiring her to request oral argument. All the court did was set a motion submission date which Taitz decided meant she was getting oral argument. She might have tried to get oral argument, but she's too late now. And winging her way to NOLA. =))

Sweet. Thanks for that ... I'd like to see the look on her face tomorrow.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23557

Quote:

Well, this will certainly be interesting when she shows up expecting to argue. So I'm wondering if someone is going to clue her in before tomorrow morning -- for example, if she has arranged a dinner with someone who would know the local rules and save her the embarrassment. Or even if she'll come back to read TFB and wise up?

Doubtful, but tomorrow tells the tale!

Well, if this court, unlike all the others to date, actually makes attorneys follow the rules, including Orly, it's too late.

Tomorrow will tell, indeed.

Either way, she flew from CA to LA, wasting time and either her and/or her supporters' money/frequent flier miles for what would be about a 3-minute hearing, if there's one at all, due to her complete ignorance of the law and procedures.

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 4:45 pm

BFB wrote:

Sweet. Thanks for that ... I'd like to see the look on her face tomorrow.

I believe we have a relative of Mr. Good Authority expecting to attend.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 4:47 pm

It's possible that out of pity, or because the court doesn't realize what a pushy person she is, that Taitz will say something in court. But it's doubtful it will be "oral argument" since it's unlikely opposing counsel will be there.

But you never know. Taitz appears to live in a nether dimension of probability where quantum theory seems to be the only way to explain why her Schrödinger's kitteh is still alive.

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 5:05 pm

Lola_Getz wrote:

Epectitus wrote:

No posts from her all day. I say... I believe she is on a plane.

Got a mental image now of Orly, flying in coach because she's too cheap to shell out for first class (and none of her minions coughed up the frequent flyer miles she asked for), haranguing her seatmate with tales of how she's going to unseat the Usurper and save the Republic.

How about a mental image of the poor bastard sitting next to her on the way home.

Paul Lentz · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 5:11 pm

Well, I think there's going to be a hearing...albeit a short one. From the PACER system, file for this case, detail for "Deadlines/Hearings":

2:10-cv-01663-MLCF-JCW Hornbeck Offshore Services, L.L.C. v. Salazar et al
Martin L.C. Feldman, presiding
Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr, referral
Date filed: 06/07/2010
Date of last filing: 05/04/2011

Deadlines/Hearings
Doc.No. Deadline/Hearing Event Filed Due/Set Satisfied Terminated
72 Release of Transcript Restrict 06/23/2010 09/21/2010
1 Answer due 06/07/2010 10/06/2010
1 Answer due 06/07/2010 10/06/2010
1 Answer due 06/07/2010 10/06/2010
1 Answer due 06/07/2010 10/06/2010
43 Answer due 06/18/2010 10/06/2010
43 Answer due 06/18/2010 10/06/2010
152 Release of Transcript Restrict 08/13/2010 11/12/2010
[highlight]252 Motion 03/28/2011 05/11/2011 at 11:00 AM[/highlight]
201 Final Pretrial Conference 11/09/2010 09/27/2011 at 01:30 PM
201 Bench Trial 11/09/2010 10/11/2011 at 09:00 AM

Looking forward to BB's report because there IS a motion hearing scheduled in this case tomorrow morning. Do I think Oily'll get smacked down? Oh, definitely, and not just in a "what hearing?" sort of way.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

HORNBECK v SALAZAR, et al.

Who is online