Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

Maru · **Posted:** Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:18 pm

Pandora wrote:

The notorious 'bitch' on GRATEWIRE known as SPG (St. Paulie Girl) is fighting with everyone, and has added this little salvo in her desperation to 'rule the forum'.....

http://gratewire.com/topic/warning-this ... et-pervert

Quote:

St. Paulie Girl

Shouldn't rikker and plutodog be focusing on the lawsuits being filed against them over at Foggy's website??

Gratewire is blocked at my work for being a hate site. Oddly they haven't discovered Dr. Hate yet.

Pandora · **Joined:** Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:39 pm **Posts:** 43

Mmm,

Seriously, Gratewire is blocked at your work for being a hate site? That's hysterical......

BFB · **Posted:** Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:31 pm

All your lawsuits are belong to us.

Foggy · **Posted:** Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:53 pm

Whoever's suing rikker and the Dog here, I can set up a special area of the forum for the trial, but I want a cut of the proceeds.

Has St. Paulie Girl mentioned her ongoing prosecution of me for extortion? She was gonna put me in prison for registering a fake Kenya email address, SarahObama@kenyaemail.com, and offering to testify for Orly if she'd send me a plane ticket and put me up in a hotel.

'Course, as Sarah Obama, I didn't speak any English. I had to have the email translated by my good buddy, Miskini Kongwe Jogoo¹.

¹ "Poor old rooster" in Swahili

Lea · **Posted:** Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:11 pm

Paul Lentz wrote:

Lea wrote:

Thank God it has finally been transfered. I will be glad when we find out what Courts and Judges it has been assigned to, so we can do the work to move this case forward and get a final ruling as soon as it is feasably possible.

Just a hunch (I have no inside info, Lea, so don't hold me to this), but I'm thinking you're going to end up in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, and if so, your judge will be Walter Smith, and your magistrate judge would be Jeffrey Manske.

Again, it's only a hunch, and based on the geography (with the principal defendants being the Hales and their multiple entities) and Waco being the closest Western District of Texas division location to Wellington.

Thank you Paul. I guess we will know when they get around to putting it on the docket. I appreciate the information and the names though, at least I will know whos who if it does end up in Waco.

:hug:

Lea · **Posted:** Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:12 pm

Res Ipsa wrote:

Quote:

Thank God it has finally been transfered.

...despite the best efforts of the idiot lawyer who thought it should be filed in PA in the first place.

You'll have Ed Hale's millions in your pocket any day now.

Quote:

and get a final ruling as soon as it is feasably possible

Yeah, they typically hand them out without trials.

Whatever, although I don't have any pockets for anyone to get in.

:hug:

Res Ipsa · **Posted:** Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:53 pm

Quote:

Whatever, although I don't have any pockets for anyone to get in.

Carrying money in pockets is old-school:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/21/polic ... -in-her-v/

Authorities in Pennsylvania arrested a 27-year-old woman who they say hid more than 100 items -- including 54 bags of heroin and loose change -- in her vagina.

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

Res Ipsa wrote:

Authorities in Pennsylvania arrested a 27-year-old woman who they say hid more than 100 items -- including 54 bags of heroin and loose change -- in her vagina.

Did they say whether it was, um, concurrent or consecutive?

CalperniaUSA · **Posted:** Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:11 pm

Res Ipsa wrote:

Carrying money in pockets is old primitive-school:
(snip)

FIFY

Res Ipsa · **Posted:** Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:05 pm

Quote:

Did they say whether it was, um, concurrent or consecutive?

Concurrent. In cash alone, she had $51.22 in there.

In US currency.

I've never encountered one that made change. It must have been adapted from an old payphone... "Insert 25 cents for an additional three minutes..."

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

Res Ipsa wrote:

Quote:

Did they say whether it was, um, concurrent or consecutive?

Concurrent. In cash alone, she had $51.22 in there.

In US currency.

I've never encountered one that made change. It must have been adapted from an old payphone... "Insert 25 cents for an additional three minutes..."

Maru · **Posted:** Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:30 pm

They make change? Wow. Now I feel even more low-tech.

SueDB · **Posted:** Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:01 pm

MaineSkeptic wrote:

Res Ipsa wrote:

Authorities in Pennsylvania arrested a 27-year-old woman who they say hid more than 100 items -- including 54 bags of heroin and loose change -- in her vagina.

Did they say whether it was, um, concurrent or consecutive?

Oooohhhh He said vagina in public...oh, this isn't Florida...

Added Reference

Edit: add Added Reference

lyssandri · **Posted:** Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:57 am

Paul Lentz wrote:

thorswitch wrote:

You know, putting together an individual set of beliefs is a lot more like getting dinner at a Chinese restaurant than I think you realize. See, in many Chinese restaurants, there are typically [highlight]3 ways to order[/highlight].

Is that anything like "cross-triangulation," Thorswitch? Belcher is an expert in "cross-triangulation," you know.

Cross-triangulation? What the hell is THAT? Oi! :roll:

lyssandri · **Posted:** Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:00 am

Clairez wrote:

thorswitch wrote:

You just can't extrapolate that amount of information from a single data point, and you look like an idiot trying to do so.

One of the best posts I have ever read. You win the internets! :-bd

A post so simple even a teatard might be able to understand it.

Why, thank yew! Nice to know I can still hit one on the head occasionally

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23583

thorswitch wrote:

Paul Lentz wrote:

thorswitch wrote:

You know, putting together an individual set of beliefs is a lot more like getting dinner at a Chinese restaurant than I think you realize. See, in many Chinese restaurants, there are typically [highlight]3 ways to order[/highlight].

Is that anything like "cross-triangulation," Thorswitch? Belcher is an expert in "cross-triangulation," you know.

Cross-triangulation? What the hell is THAT? Oi! :roll:

It relates back to the old days at OC. Linda "Starr" Belcher, came up with that ridiculous phrase after Berg had filed his 3 lawsuits, IIRC, and claimed they now had Obama right where they wanted him in a cross-triangulation of lawsuits. :lol:

More properly referred to as "cross-tardangulation."

lyssandri · **Posted:** Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:24 am

realist wrote:

It relates back to the old days at OC. Linda "Starr" Belcher, came up with that ridiculous phrase after Berg had filed his 3 lawsuits, IIRC, and claimed they now had Obama right where they wanted him in a cross-triangulation of lawsuits. :lol:

More properly referred to as "cross-tardangulation."

Oh dear.....

verbalobe · **Posted:** Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:17 pm

thorswitch wrote:

realist wrote:

It relates back to the old days at OC. Linda "Starr" Belcher, came up with that ridiculous phrase after Berg had filed his 3 lawsuits, IIRC, and claimed they now had Obama right where they wanted him in a cross-triangulation of lawsuits. :lol:

More properly referred to as "cross-tardangulation."

Oh dear.....

It relied on things like the COLB saying 'filed' not 'accepted', or the DOH saying they only confirmed that it matched a 'record' not the 'original', and demurrals from Kapiolani to confirm anything, and snippets out of various FOIA requests; they figured they had established a three-way chain of proof that was internally inconsistent, and therefore everyone involved is lying about everything and covering up for each other. By getting each piece of the argument into one of the several lawsuits, it was going to FORCE Obama to rely on A to answer X, B to answer Y, and C to answer Z -- but THEN they would HAVE HIM, because A, B, and C are contradictory.

Then Perry Mason would step forward, with the putative President on the witness stand....

Yeah. ComPLETEly CUCkoo for COCOApuffs.

lyssandri · **Posted:** Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:21 pm

verbalobe wrote:

It relied on things like the COLB saying 'filed' not 'accepted',

(much appreciated info snipped)

Uh, thank you. I, uh, think. My brain needs to go take a nap now - LOL

Paul Lentz · **Posted:** Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:52 pm

thorswitch wrote:

Paul Lentz wrote:

thorswitch wrote:

You know, putting together an individual set of beliefs is a lot more like getting dinner at a Chinese restaurant than I think you realize. See, in many Chinese restaurants, there are typically [highlight]3 ways to order[/highlight].

Is that anything like "cross-triangulation," Thorswitch? Belcher is an expert in "cross-triangulation," you know.

Cross-triangulation? What the hell is THAT? Oi! :roll:

TW, on ObamaCrimes, Belcher was always bragging that Berg's 3 active lawsuits (at that time) was an unbeatable "cross-triangulation" which would box President Obama in, and than squeeze him into a frogmarch-out-of-the-White House position.

It was always silly-talk, and not just because the 3 lawsuits were obvious losers, but Belcher sure did seem to think that using the term "cross-triangulation" made her sound knowledgable. It didn't. :mrgreen:

LM K · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:46 am

30 more days until the 2 year anniversary of Liberi v Taitz.

I don't know if I should =))

or

.....

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23583

LIBERI v TAITZ (THIRD CIRCUIT)

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

04/19/2011 Open Document MANDATE ISSUED, filed. (AWI)

The entry includes:

Quote:

1 Open document Mandate Issued 2
2 Open document Court's Opinion 4
3 Open form Mandate Letter 2

which I combined into one document.

Quote:

1 In response to our request for briefing on the appealability of the transfer order,
defendants asked that we treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus. Because there were no “exceptional circumstances amounting to a ‘judicial usurpation of power’” on the part of the District Court, see Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967), and the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be addressed by the transferee court, see Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976) (writ should not issue where other adequate remedies exist), the alternative request for mandamus relief is denied.

SueDB · **Posted:** Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:11 pm

Quote:

unbeatable "cross-triangulation" which would box President Obama in, and than squeeze him into a frogmarch-out-of-the-White House position.

should be more like "cross-retardation" which would box Presi....

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:28 pm

Will Taitz play in SCOTUS?

I don't see why not.

SueDB · **Posted:** Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:33 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Will Taitz play in SCOTUS?

I don't see why not.

It is just time, energy, and scarcer resources that get eaten up floundering around Federal Court on this one, but: Knock yourself out Orly!

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Liberi v. Taitz, et al.

Who is online