According to the court: "Oral Argument Date/Time: 04/18/2012 01:00 PM"

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/ ... rOrg=Taitz

No promises, but I will try to be there.

I'm gonna have to miss this one. It should be entertaining watching Orly argue that she didn't get to feenish.

I am going to try to drive down.

Increasingly looking like I won't be able to make it, so hopefully someone else will give us a report.

About 14 more tick-tocks...

My guess is that there will be a tongue lashing on the format and some skeptical questioning on the merits. I don't think these judges (justices) will be like the judges on the 9th Circuit and simply shroud the Chaleria.

It's definitely wine o'clock here (9.04pm); I feel this will bring a new perspective to reports of Orly's fun and games.

Docket implies no decision :

04/18/2012 Request filed to: The request filed by On Second Thoughts TV, Cable TV show for Comcast & Japan to photograph, record or broadcast - OA.

04/18/2012 Order filed. The request filed by On Second Thoughts TV, Cable TV show for Comcast & Japan to photograph, record or broadcast is GRANTED subject to the conditions in rule 1.150, C.R.C. and the following: All media hook-ups will take place in the North Parking Lot. No cameras in the courtroom. No still pictures in the courtroom. No interruption of court proceedings. All interviews are to be held outside the court building.

04/18/2012 Cause argued and submitted. Merits. Cause called. Orly Taitz argued for appellant. Brian Hildreth argued for respondent. Cause submitted.

So which screech will it be... How she must win!! Or how she was mistreated by a corrupt judge?

Betting windows are now open.

So, her ex-felon buddy was there video taping? What's that creepy guy's name? It usually takes him a week to get the videos up. Will have to find something else to do while we wait.

A long wait :

Future Scheduled Actions
Description Due Date
Opinion filed. 07/17/2012

Case at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=1981747&doc_no=G045351
Click on the tabs .. [docket] ..

Magic words in California. An appeal must be decided within 90 days of "submission" or the judges can't get paid their salaries. (No, I'm not making that up, though the rule does seem to be unique to California.)

Interesting. So the

is just setting the deadline. We may have have the ruling well in advance of that date?

Likely. A memorandum has already been written. Given the straightforward nature of the case, it won't be much work to convert it to an opinion. The far bigger concern would be the press of other business.

So no one was able to break away from their worthwhile lives to watch this wretch argue her case?

Woodworker said he might go. If so, maybe he's stuck in traffic. Or writing a brilliant (and hilarious) report.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Did not make it.

Likewise. I had a major filing due in court today, which the clerk tried to reject on bogus grounds. Was on the phone with the clerk's office for hours. (But never accused the clerk of treason.)

William Wagener.

Dude had to start a second YouTube account. I'm keeping an eye on "williamjwagener" and "williamwagener".

Taitz v. Dunn
Case: G045351, 4th div3 District

Disposition date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2012-05-01
Disposition description: Affirmed in full
Disposition status as of 2012-05-01: Final
Notes:
Affirmed in full
O'Leary/Rylaarsdam/Moore



For more information on this case, go to:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/ ... =773439431

For opinions, go to the following web site: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opi ... i?Courts=G
Court of Appeal opinions are generally available on the web site by 5 p.m. on the disposition date.
Unpublished opinions are generally available on the web site by 5�p.m. on the disposition date or
by 5 p.m. on the court workday following the disposition date.

And another one bites the dust.

In recognition of Taitz's most recent judicial defeat I have amended the title of this thread.

Heckuva job Brownie Orly!

IANAL - translation of the above?