LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Sat May 21, 2011 10:44 am

realist wrote:

Mikedunford wrote:

Does anyone have a link to the original complaint? I snagged the full 198 page amended complaint and I think he might have added a few defendants. I don't remember Daylight, Yosef, Oracle, Reed Elsevier, LexisNexis, etc. being defendants before, but I could be wrong. And PACER is down for the next couple of hours, so hard to check.

Mike:

Quote:

05/04/2009 1[RECAP] COMPLAINT against defts' ORLY TAITZ, DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., YOSEF TAITZ, THE SANKEY FIRM, SANKEY INVESTIGATIONS, INC., NEIL SANKEY, JAMES SUNDQUIST, ROCK SALT PUBLISHING, LINDA SUE BELCHER, EDGAR HALE, CAREN HALE, PLAINS RADIO NETWORK, BAR H FARMS, KPRN AM 1610 ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number PPE000127.), filed by plffs' GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, PHILIP J. BERG, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG, EVELYN ADAMS, LISA M. OSTELLA. ( FILED IN HARD COPY ) (gn, ) Modified on 5/5/2009 (gn, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2010: # 1 Part 2) (gn, ). (Entered: 05/04/2009)

Hmmm, do I understand this correctly, CEL3 is Bergs client, and now Berg+CEL3 are piggybacking CEL3s former suit into Bergs suit ? How does this mix well? And how might the financial aspects look for the paying member(s) of Bergs initial claim against Orly ?

Do I see it correctly, that the judge must turn a blind eye on all his knowlege about the former CEL3 vs Orly and the world in this new ammended complaint ?

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9399

RTH10260 wrote:

Does anyone have a link to the original complaint? I snagged the full 198 page amended complaint and I think he might have added a few defendants. I don't remember Daylight, Yosef, Oracle, Reed Elsevier, LexisNexis, etc. being defendants before, but I could be wrong. And PACER is down for the next couple of hours, so hard to check.

Is Yosi going to get sick of being constantly sued by crazy lunatics, because of his insane wife's demented bullshit? I wonder what he thinks of this idiocy.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Sat May 21, 2011 1:13 pm

Was Yosi Taitz previously dismissed out for lack of personal jurisdiction? Has the statute of limitations barred claims against him? (I think so.)

I didn't want to lose too many IQ points, so I didn't read much of the bloated, prolix proposed amended complaint. I did note that Berg now alleges Liberi is a "resident" of New Mexico. (Hey, Berg -- the correct term is "citizen." Why don't you get something right? And stop bolding and underlining not?)

But I do have a question. Did Berg once again allege that he has a professional staff and that he sustained damages as a result? I remember Res Ipsa correctly took him to task for that quite a while ago.

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Sat May 21, 2011 1:33 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Was Yosi Taitz previously dismissed out for lack of personal jurisdiction? Has the statute of limitations barred claims against him? (I think so.)

I didn't want to lose too many IQ points, so I didn't read much of the bloated, prolix proposed amended complaint. I did note that Berg now alleges Liberi is a "resident" of New Mexico. (Hey, Berg -- the correct term is "citizen." Why don't you get something right? And stop bolding and underlining not?)

But I do have a question. Did Berg once again allege that he has a professional staff and that he sustained damages as a result? I remember Res Ipsa correctly took him to task for that quite a while ago.

It looks (at least to this not-lawyer) like Berg is trying to claim that he's actually been suing Yosi and the corporate defendants all along. Previously, he just didn't know who they were, so they were listed as John Does on the original complaint.

The bulk of the corporations that Berg wants to sue are involved in compiling and providing access to the personal data about Liberi that Taitz and Sankey then splattered across the intertubes. I've got no idea if there's any actual tort that they might have really violated, but Liberi probably has some reason to be pissed with them - they didn't exactly make it difficult for someone to get and misuse her personal information.

Oracle and Daylight, OTOH, appear to mostly be guilty of conspiring to sneak past the tinfoil lining of Berg's hat, and into some of his strange conspiracy theories. Something about writing backdoor access into the software, or having all the information automatically delivered to Daylight's servers, or some such. Who knows.

Bowling Ball is listed as a potential witness, but it doesn't look like Berg is pulling in Bowling Ball's complaint.

tjh · **Joined:** Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm **Posts:** 2475

realist wrote:

As if that's any big surprise. Rules? Orly don't need no steeenkin' rules.

Edit: ETA: Based on Mr. Good Authority, information and belief, Judge Guilford, in a recent hearing, ordered Orly to cooperate with the joint report. Just sayin'.

Email from Dr Obly (the end of the filing) says that since she filed an antiSLAPP everything here is moot.

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Sat May 21, 2011 3:58 pm

realist wrote:

As if that's any big surprise. Rules? Orly don't need no steeenkin' rules.

In the 0th Circuit, you are always allowed to proceed on the assumption that every motion you have filed will be ruled upon in your favor in every way. Therefore, there is no need to meet and confer, because O'Rly has filed her anti-SLAPP motion and the whole lawsuit can therefore be treated as already dismissed.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23582

Attached (finally) are all the documents related to the docket entry posted above. Sorry for the delay.

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

05/20/2011 190 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Leave to file First Amended Complaint ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support ; Declaration of Philip J. Berg; Certificate of Service; and Proposed Order 181[RECAP] ; Certificate of Service filed by Plaintiffs PHILIP J. BERG, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, Lisa Liberi, LISA M. OSTELLA, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG. (Attachments: # 1 Exibit "A" Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Table of Contents, # 2 Exhibit "A" Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint, # 3 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "1" thru "13", # 4 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "14" thru "20", # 5 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "21" thru "26", # 6 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "27" thru "35", # 7 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "36" thru "44", # 8 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "45" thru "47", # 9 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "48" thru "50", # 10 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "51" thru "54", # 11 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "55" thru "57", # 12 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "58" thru "59", # 13 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "60" thru "65", # 14 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "66" thru "67", # 15 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "68" thru "75", # 16 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "76" thru "83", # 17 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "84" thru "90", # 18 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "91" thru "95", # 19 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "96" thru "104", # 20 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "105" thru "112", # 21 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "113" thru "118", # 22 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "119" thru "126", # 23 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "127" thru "131", # 24 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "132" thru "138", # 25 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "139" thru "140", # 26 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "141" thru "142", # 27 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "143" thru "145")(Berg, Philip) (Entered: 05/20/2011)

I'm going to attach the motion, but not all the "exhibits," for obvious reasons. I will, however, post a log of what they are. If anyone just can not live without one/some, lemme know and I'll see about downloading it/them. I have no idea what some of the are, so...

Quote:

Attachment Description
1 Exibit "A" Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Table of Contents 22 pages 166 kb
2 Exhibit "A" Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint 198 pages 0.7 mb
3 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "1" thru "13" 48 pages 4.6 mb
4 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "14" thru "20" 44 pages 4.1 mb
5 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "21" thru "26" 70 pages 4.1 mb
6 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "27" thru "35" 44 pages 4.0 mb
7 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "36" thru "44" 43 pages 4.0 mb
8 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "45" thru "47" 29 pages 2.9 mb
9 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "48" thru "50" 25 pages 3.0 mb
10 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "51" thru "54" 41 pages 4.3 mb
11 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "55" thru "57" 35 pages 4.3 mb
12 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "58" thru "59" 21 pages 3.3 mb
13 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "60" thru "65" 34 pages 3.3 mb
14 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "66" thru "67" 23 pages 3.5 mb
15 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "68" thru "75" 35 pages 3.2 mb
16 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "76" thru "83" 41 pages 3.8 mb
17 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "84" thru "90" 40 pages 3.6 mb
18 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "91" thru "95" 51 pages 4.1 mb
19 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "96" thru "104" 40 pages 3.7 mb
20 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "105" thru "112" 64 pages 4.3 mb
21 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "113" thru "118" 37 pages 3.4 mb
22 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "119" thru "126" 47 pages 3.8 mb
23 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "127" thru "131" 29 pages 3.1 mb
24 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "132" thru "138" 51 pages 3.6 mb
25 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "139" thru "140" 35 pages 4.2 mb
26 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "141" thru "142" 26 pages 1.4 mb
27 Plaintiffs 1st Amended Complaint Exhibits "143" thru "145" 37 pages 1.9 mb

link to motion shortly

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23582

New Docket Entries...

Quote:

05/23/2011 193 OF SERVICE filed by DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ, re First MOTION to Substitute attorney JAYSON Q. MARASIGAN in place of attorney ORLY TAITZ 192 served on MAY 23, 2011. (Marasigan, Jayson) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

05/23/2011 192 NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION to Substitute attorney JAYSON Q. MARASIGAN in place of attorney ORLY TAITZ filed by DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ. Motion set for hearing on 6/27/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order PROPOSED ORDER ON REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY)(Marasigan, Jayson) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

I'm no expert, but shouldn't there be a motion? Or does the form in CA (which they seem to have for everyting

) suffice? :-k

MsDaisy · **Posted:** Mon May 23, 2011 2:48 pm

realist wrote:

New Docket Entries...

Quote:

05/23/2011 193 OF SERVICE filed by DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ, re First MOTION to Substitute attorney JAYSON Q. MARASIGAN in place of attorney ORLY TAITZ 192 served on MAY 23, 2011. (Marasigan, Jayson) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

05/23/2011 192 NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION to Substitute attorney JAYSON Q. MARASIGAN in place of attorney ORLY TAITZ filed by DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ. Motion set for hearing on 6/27/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order PROPOSED ORDER ON REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY)(Marasigan, Jayson) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

I'm no expert, but shouldn't there be a motion? Or does the form in CA (which they seem to have for everyting

) suffice? :-k

What is this all about? Is Orly getting a real lawyer?

ducktape · **Posted:** Mon May 23, 2011 2:49 pm

Orly would actually retain (and pay for) counsel on this case????

Incredible. I sense that perhaps some sort of intervention has taken place.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23582

BUT WAIT!!! THERE'S MORE!!! :lol:

New (er)

Docket Entries...

Quote:

05/23/2011 197 OF SERVICE filed by DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ, re Notice of Association of Counsel 196 served on MAY 23, 2011. (Marasigan, Jayson) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

05/23/2011 196 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney JAYSON Q. MARASIGAN on behalf of Defendant ORLY TAITZ. Filed by Defendant ORLY TAITZ (Marasigan, Jayson) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

05/23/2011 195 OF SERVICE filed by DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ, re Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 194 served on MAY 23, 2011. (Marasigan, Jayson) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

05/23/2011 194 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION re: MOTION for Leave to file First Amended Complaint ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support ; Declaration of Philip J. Berg; Certificate of Service; and Proposed Order 181[RECAP] filed by Defendant ORLY TAITZ. (Marasigan, Jayson) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

Is it just me or did anyone else notice Berg is not listed on the Proofs of Service?

links shortly

Dr. Caligari · **Joined:** Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:22 pm **Posts:** 225

Mikedunford wrote:

In the 0th Circuit, you are always allowed to proceed on the assumption that every motion you have filed will be ruled upon in your favor in every way. Therefore, there is no need to meet and confer, because O'Rly has filed her anti-SLAPP motion and the whole lawsuit can therefore be treated as already dismissed.

Actually, in a California state court, filing an anti-SLAPP motion does automatically stay all discovery, which is no doubt where Orly got the idea. But, even though federal courts in California permit anti-SLAPP motions, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure control over anything inconsistent in California law, and the federal rules do not provide for a stay of discovery merely by filing a motion.

bob · **Posted:** Mon May 23, 2011 3:22 pm

Jayson Q. Marasigan's bio from his two-attorney firm, Dack Marasigan, LLP. (Fomerly Dack Marasigan Flores, LLP.)

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23582

ducktape wrote:

Orly would actually retain (and pay for) counsel on this case????

Incredible. I sense that perhaps some sort of intervention has taken place.

Most likely insurance counsel.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon May 23, 2011 3:46 pm

Looks like new counsel is having some difficulty filing the proper documents on CM/ECF. And it would be useful to file a proof of service showing that all of the parties were given notice, not merely your client's co-defendant.

Just sayin . . .

esseff44 · **Posted:** Mon May 23, 2011 3:59 pm

MsDaisy wrote:

realist wrote:

New Docket Entries...

Quote:

05/23/2011 193 OF SERVICE filed by DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ, re First MOTION to Substitute attorney JAYSON Q. MARASIGAN in place of attorney ORLY TAITZ 192 served on MAY 23, 2011. (Marasigan, Jayson) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

05/23/2011 192 NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION to Substitute attorney JAYSON Q. MARASIGAN in place of attorney ORLY TAITZ filed by DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ. Motion set for hearing on 6/27/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order PROPOSED ORDER ON REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY)(Marasigan, Jayson) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

I'm no expert, but shouldn't there be a motion? Or does the form in CA (which they seem to have for everyting

) suffice? :-k

What is this all about? Is Orly getting a real lawyer?

Who is Charlene Y. Chao and why is her name listed as a defendant in #193 above? Is that a mistake? Should it be O'rly instead?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23582

Quote:

Who is Charlene Y. Chao and why is her name listed as a defendant in #193 above? Is that a mistake? Should it be O'rly instead?

Best guess... they used a template from another document in another case when entering their firm and individual names and whoever did it did not change Chao to Taitz.

It happens... sloppy but it happens.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon May 23, 2011 4:17 pm

An inauspicious debut for Taitz's new counsel.

How many notices of deficiency will be issued? How many follow up documents to clean up the mess?

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Mon May 23, 2011 4:22 pm

How long before Orly starts filing Pro Se as well a la Holy Cao?

ZekeB · **Posted:** Mon May 23, 2011 4:25 pm

Ya can't blame the girl for trying to save her law license.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10669

realist wrote:

ducktape wrote:

Orly would actually retain (and pay for) counsel on this case????

Incredible. I sense that perhaps some sort of intervention has taken place.

Most likely insurance counsel.

If so, the insurance company will likely only pay him for what, one hour to review the file? =))

This kid's gonna be eating a ton of billable hours on this one. And just wait until he finds out how crazy the parties and their attorneys are; the poor guy has NO idea what he's just gotten himself into, wouldn't want to wish this case on my worst enemy. ;;)

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23582

Some fresh word salad for ya... Yet another

New Docket Entry

Quote:

05/23/2011 198 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Leave to file First Amended Complaint ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support ; Declaration of Philip J. Berg; Certificate of Service; and Proposed Order 181[RECAP] filed by Defendant DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

It would appear by this filing by Orly, at least to me, that the attorneys who "associated" in the prior filings are most likely representing Orly's law practice or dental practice perhaps, and Orly is representing herself in her individual capacity and DOFF. Sumptin' like that.

link shortly

Just for grins, check out the attention to detail on page 3. =))

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10669

As I just said..........

poutine · **Posted:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:18 pm

TexasFilly wrote:

As I just said..........

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23582

TexasFilly wrote:

As I just said..........

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Who is online