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

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

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

Postby Piffle » Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:29 pm

:crazy: This case is the perfect storm. Or, more to the point, the perfect shitstorm. =)) [hidden]If I were Hizzoner, I'd sanction them both to death and let doG sort it out. NADT.[/hidden]

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

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

Postby Sam the Centipede » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:02 am

:crazy: This case is the perfect storm. Or, more to the point, the perfect shitstorm. =))





[hidden]If I were Hizzoner, I'd sanction them both to death and let doG sort it out. NADT.[/hidden]

The medieval method of trial by combat would be appropriate, and the court could make a bit of cash by selling tickets. Mud would be optional; but they both like slinging it, so yeah, let's have a bucket.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 9915
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

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

Postby Suranis » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:53 am

YOU really wanna watch mud wrestling involving la Taitz?

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

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

Postby Sam the Centipede » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:37 am

YOU really wanna watch mud wrestling involving la Taitz?

Yup! With screechin' an' hair-pullin' and humiliation (if it's possible for that attention whore to be humiliated).Get a Japanese game show in on it too!

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

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

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:44 am

PS: The anti-SLAPP motion will probably still be denied. This didn't help.

This did NOT help.

User avatar
Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5620
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

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

Postby Joseph Robidoux III » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:49 am

:crazy: This case is the perfect storm. Or, more to the point, the perfect shitstorm. =)) [hidden]If I were Hizzoner, I'd sanction them both to death and let doG sort it out. NADT.[/hidden]

Hizzoner might be wise to do just that.Judge Guilford has a few years to go before he can retire or take senior status under the rule of 80. This case is likely to still be kickin' before that occurs (Judge Guilford was born in 1950 and became a USDC judge in 2006).Guilford was nominated by GW Bush so it's unlikely he will be elevated to the 9th Circuit.

User avatar
rosy
Posts: 1480
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:36 pm

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

Postby rosy » Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:10 am

The bold underlings are leaking into Taitz's piles o' poo too; document 626 begins with a paragraph which contains opposition and already.





This ridiculous Jarndyce v Jarndyce lawsuit has taken over 4 years and appears to be no nearer to a resolution than it was at the beginning. Short of trial by combat (an honourable way to settle disputes, so inapplicable to a bunch of plaintiffs and defendants who have no honour), there really ought to be a way to settle this which relieves the burden on the court system.





IANAL question: in document 626 page 4 line 17, Taitz claims that doc 621 and doc 622 exceed the 20 page limit at 29 pages. Doc 621 does exceed the limit if the caption page, the table of authorities etc is included. Without that, it is 20 pages. Does the 20 page limit include the caption and the table of authorities? Doc 622 is 3 pages, so I can only assume that Taitz has added to the two documents together to get to her "exceeds the page limit" whine.





Extra question: Somewhere in that mess, Taitz contends that the SSN she "allegedly published ends in 4312", and that this is "different [sic] than* her actual SSN (ending in 6858)". While this falls short of an admission that she did publish an individual's SSN, is it not part of this case that Liberi had to have a new SSN because of Taitz's publication of the number? So the half-admission of publication of 'a' number does not help her case, since it seems to read "I published a number which Liberi used on her tax return, but it's OK because at some point later Liberi had a different number".





*not different 'than', different FROM in this case (and indeed in almost every case) Orly. Lern 2 rite Inglish.





Edited to correct document number; apparently I have developed dyscalculia in the last few hours! :oops:

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

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

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:28 am

The bold underlings are leaking into Taitz's piles o' poo too; document 626 begins with a paragraph which contains opposition and already.





This ridiculous Jarndyce v Jarndyce lawsuit has taken over 4 years and appears to be no nearer to a resolution than it was at the beginning. Short of trial by combat (an honourable way to settle disputes, so inapplicable to a bunch of plaintiffs and defendants who have no honour), there really ought to be a way to settle this which relieves the burden on the court system.

Impose sanctions for EVERY filing that violates the rules. Increase the penalty EVERY time. When penalties do not deter more misconduct, impose contempt penalties. Increase these EVERY time. When civil contempt doesn't work, go criminal. A night in the pokey for every bogus filing would be instructive. If it isn't, it can be two nights. A week. A month. Six months.





Report EVERY violation to the State Bar. Both State Bars in this case, including the one that is moving at a snail's pace to disbar Phil Berg.





The court has the means at its disposal to curb this nonsense, but has so far chosen not to do so.





The result is an enormous waste of taxpayer money and a docket that makes War and Peace look like a novelette.

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 6249
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

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

Postby Dolly » Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:05 pm

]:evil: [/break1]orlytaitzesq.com/?p=425358]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=425358 :evil:

Press release: Federal Judge Andrew Guilford finds in favor of Attorney Taitz, finds that she never lied, she did not lie to the court and there is nor reason to sanction her. At the same time he gives a leave of court (allows) Attorney Taitz to file a motion against Attorney Berg and his paralegal Lisa Liberi for lyingPress release: Federal Judge Andrew Guilford finds in favor of Attorney Taitz, finds that she never lied, that she did not lie to the court and there is nor reason to sanction her. At the same time he gives a leave of court (allows) Attorney Taitz to file a motion against Attorney Berg and his paralegal Lisa Liberi for lying.Many in left wing media were reporting that Attorney Orly Taitz is about to be sanctioned by the Federal Judge because of allegation made by Attorney Philip Berg.Today at a motion hearing before Federal Judge Andrew Guilford, Judge Guilford ruled in favor of Taitz and found that she did not lie and there is no basis to sanction her for anything.Taitz demands that Huffington Post, OC Weekly (Orange CountyWeekly), multiple Patch community papers and others, who published such defamatory statements, claiming that she is about to be sanctioned for lying, to file this press release, advising the public that the judge found that she did not lie and there is no reason or justification for sanctioning her.Further, Taitz has been harassed for four year by a bogus law suit brought by Pennsylvania attorney Philip Berg, who was already ruled to be suspended from practice. Berg is currently awaiting a ruling by the Supreme Court of PA on his appeal of his suspension from practice of law. The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of PA ruled to suspend his license for over a year when he admitted to lying to the client and to the disciplinary board, whereby for over a year he did not advise his client that her case was dismissed, he was telling the client that the case was still going on. Berg also submitted to the Disciplinary Board a sworn declaration of Lisa Liberi, claimed that she advised the client, while later Berg admitted that the client was never advised, that it was a lie.Additionally, Liberi was tried in CA in 2008 in a different case, there were 24 felony counts of forgery and grand theft against her. She was convicted on 10 counts of forgery of an official seal, grand theft and attempt to file forged/altered documents. She received 8 years prison term, which was later reduced to 3 years of probation due to medical reasons.In the current case Berg claimed that he and his legal assistant Lisa Liberi were defamed by publishing of Liberi’s criminal record, trying to imply that she was a different person. Liberi already admitted that she is indeed a convicted felon from California. The court already dismissed the case against multiple other parties, citing her criminal record, and everything published about her was public information, and Liberi herself entered all her personal information including her full unredacted Social Security number into public record in her criminal case and in her two bankrupcy cases.After years of litigation when defendants sought to dismiss the original complaint, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Defendants sought to strike the complaint under antiSLAPP, which would have given the defendants all their attorneys fees, which was not granted, however the court gave them a leave of court to file motions to dismiss the amended complaint by Berg, Liberi and others for failure to state a claim (meaning no basis) and under lack of jurisdiction, which was not ruled upon on the merits for four years yet. This new motions to dismiss the frivolous complaint by Berg and Liberi will be filed within 30 days.Since the 1960s civil rights movement, different bogus legal actions were used to harass civil rights leaders, to drain their financial and emotional resources. Taitz believes that what is being done to her, is being done for the same reasons, but to a much higher degree.

[edit]moved from another thread - I initially posted in the wrong place. :oops: Thanks, bob.[/edit]

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8406
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

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

Postby verbalobe » Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:57 pm

Today at a motion hearing before Federal Judge Andrew Guilford, Judge Guilford ruled in favor of Taitz and found that she did not lie and there is no basis to sanction her for anything.

Since the 1960s civil rights movement, different bogus legal actions were used to harass civil rights leaders, to drain their financial and emotional resources. Taitz believes that what is being done to her, is being done for the same reasons, but to a much higher degree.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

User avatar
AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

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

Postby AnitaMaria » Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:22 pm

Sigh. Orly Taitz will get her comeuppanceanydaynow.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 30689
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

Postby realist » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:09 am

And as Paul Harvey said, now we know the rest of the story...





CDCA ECF 632 2013-06-18 - Liberi v Taitz - [link]In Chambers ORDER,http://www.scribd.com/doc/148762961/CDCA-ECF-632-2013-06-18-Liberi-v-Taitz-In-Chambers-ORDER[/link]

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

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

Postby p0rtia » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:22 am

Thank you for this and all you do, Realist! I was looking forward to seeing the other shoe drop after yesterdays Taitz-boast! -xx








And as Paul Harvey said, now we know the rest of the story...





CDCA ECF 632 2013-06-18 - Liberi v Taitz - [link]In Chambers ORDER,http://www.scribd.com/doc/148762961/CDCA-ECF-632-2013-06-18-Liberi-v-Taitz-In-Chambers-ORDER[/link]

No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31036
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

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

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:24 am

A mixed bag, but mostly bad for the Chaleria. She avoided sanctions, but the anti-SLAPP motion her lawyer filed was denied. And her request for leave to file her own anti-SLAPP motion was also denied.





So this litigation continues. Of course, the Chaleria can now file a new appeal to the 9th Circuit and drag the case out for another two years. Or request a trial and kick plaintiffs' asses down the courthouse steps in a few months.





:-k Hmmm. I wonder which alternative twlithotu will take. :-k

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15653
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

Postby bob » Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:41 pm

So this litigation continues. Of course, the Chaleria can now file a new appeal to the 9th Circuit and drag the case out for another two years. Or request a trial and kick plaintiffs' asses down the courthouse steps in a few months.





:-k Hmmm. I wonder which alternative twlithotu will take. :-k

Also: Orly Taitz (represented by counsel) and DOFF, LOoT, and OT, Inc. (represented by Taitz) may choose different litigation stratergies.





So I'm guessing both paths will be taken. :roll:

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

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

Postby Piffle » Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:14 pm

Judge Guilford walks in at about 0:18...

User avatar
everalm
Posts: 1772
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:45 am

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

Postby everalm » Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:46 am

Maybe it's just me but every time I read Phil Berg's name I mentally pronounced it Filbert....a name for a nut (Hazelnut specifically)....... :crazy:

User avatar
vic
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley

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

Postby vic » Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:46 am

Maybe it's just me but every time I read Phil Berg's name I mentally pronounced it Filbert....a name for a nut (Hazelnut specifically)....... :crazy:

Hadn't read it that way before, but I suspect I will now :D

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15653
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

Postby bob » Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:44 pm

Also: there's a new firm purportedly sponsoring Berg ([/break1]gblaw.net/]Gittler & Bradford), but it has not moved to enter the case. [-X [-X

I hope Gittler & Bradford are ready to litigate, because [/break1]pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out/208DB2010-Berg.pdf]Berg has been suspended for two years.

User avatar
ducktape
Posts: 5313
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:09 pm

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

Postby ducktape » Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:32 pm

Also: there's a new firm purportedly sponsoring Berg ([/break1]gblaw.net/]Gittler & Bradford), but it has not moved to enter the case. [-X [-X

I hope Gittler & Bradford are ready to litigate, because [/break1]pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out/208DB2010-Berg.pdf]Berg has been suspended for two years.

And most deservedly so.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15653
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

Postby bob » Fri Jun 21, 2013 9:55 pm

Notice of the decision by the Supreme Court of PA to suspend the law license of Philip Berg for 2 years

:twisted: [/break1]orlytaitzesq.com/?p=425949]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=425949 :twisted:





But Taitz, being Taitz, can't help but pile on:


On 06. 20.2013, one day after having his license suspended, instead of submitted a required notification of suspension of his law license, Philip Berg submitted to Judge Guilford a request for a leave of court signed by him as an attorney for all the Plaintiffs.





On the same day a [highlight]backdated[/highlight] notice of appearance was submitted to this court [highlight]supposedly[/highlight] by California Attorney Stephen Marcus. On 06.20.2013 Marcus supposedly filed a notice of appearance backdated for 05.31.2013, 20 days earlier. In light of Lisa Liberi’s 2008 conviction on 10 counts of forgery of an official seal, attempt to file forged IDs and grand theft FWV028000 Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County and 06.19.2013 suspension of Berg with evidence of him working with Liberi and making fraudulent statements and submitting “recreated” records, it is [highlight]yet to be determined, whether backdated Notice of Appearance in this court was indeed submitted by Attorney Marcus himsel[/highlight]f.





Berg was representing plaintiffs herein pro hac vice. His [highlight]cousin[/highlight], Randy Berg . . . .

:twisted: [/break1]google.com/gview?url=http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-contentsrc="http://thefogbow.com/forum/uploads/2013/06/Notice-of-2-year-suspension-of-Philip-Berg-filed.pdf&chrome=true]https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http: ... hrome=true :twisted:

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 11293
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Eastern West Coast

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

Postby ZekeB » Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:16 pm

Thank your lucky stars that Lisa Liberi was represented by the Incompetent Phil Berg, Orly. You're not out of the woods yet, but it would have been a whole lot worse for you if Liberi had a lawyer who was the least bit competent.

User avatar
AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

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

Postby AnitaMaria » Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:37 pm

From p. 3 of Taitz's document:

As of now there is no attorney representing the Plaintiffs either in this court or in the Court of Appeals for an appeal of denial to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under anti-SLAPP.

So she's going to drag this out for another couple of years. :roll: And then there's this:

Docket in this case has to be modified to reflect that from 06.19.2013 all of the plaintiffs are appearing pro se, without a representation by an attorney

She makes this statement despite acknowledging that Stephen Marcus entered an appearance for the defendants. I guess she believes that because she thinks the date of the notice is suspicious, the court is required to ignore it.

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

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

Postby Piffle » Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:48 pm

In light of Lisa Liberi’s 2008 conviction on 10 counts of forgery of an official seal, attempt to file forged IDs and grand theft FWV028000 Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County and 06.19.2013 suspension of Berg with evidence of him working with Liberi and making fraudulent statements and submitting “recreated” records, it is yet to be determined, whether backdated Notice of Appearance in this court was indeed submitted by Attorney Marcus himself.

HELP! Could someone please diagram that sentence for me?Fer chrissakes, there was a time I thought I had a command of the English language but I have no fucking idea what that sentence means. Has the common parlance changed that much during my six-odd decades?Of particular interest: What is meant by "grand theft FWV028000 Superior Court of California"? Is the phrase rooted in hip-hop? Or is it a California legal term of art? The Moldovization of our national tongue?

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 11293
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Eastern West Coast

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

Postby ZekeB » Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:50 pm

HELP! Could someone please diagram that sentence for me?Fer chrissakes, about a bazillion years ago, I got an 800 on my SAT (Verbal) but I have no fucking idea what that sentence means. Has the language changed that much in roughly 50 years?Of particular interest: What is meant by "grand theft FWV028000 Superior Court of California"? Is the phrase rooted in hip-hop? Or is it a California legal term of art?

It's called BS-ing when you haven't a clue of what you are talking about. Miss Utah gave a demonstration on that last week.


Return to “Phil Berg”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests