Orly's latest poopies.....

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6631

The place leaks like a sieve! :lol:

And the tile's coming off the walls also, too.

Litlebritdifrnt2 · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:47 am

raicha wrote:

The statute of limitations for construction defect claims in California is 10 years, so this could be an old, old argument.

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

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:00 am

That was the first thing I noticed in a barebones pleading with few specifics but many quotations from the statute. One other piece of overkill was the specific Doe allegations by placing them in groupings in several paragraphs. Really?

The complaint says very little (which may or may not be a good pleading tactic) but the failure to include a date when the work was performed or completed makes the complaint susceptible to a demurrer for uncertainty.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9356

kimba wrote:

The place leaks like a sieve! :lol:

And the tile's coming off the walls also, too.

I hope they get black mold, too, the rotten bastards.

poutine · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:13 am

I've read my fair share of California construction defects complaints. This is pretty boilerplate. The statute of limitations is a defense, not a necessary element of any of the plaintiffs' counts, in addition to which a CD claim often has several dates in play at the same time. Further, the admission of any particular dates could unknowingly and instantaneously eliminate coverage from an insurance policy that's out there. If I am a plaintiff's CD lawyer, I am going to write my complaint as vaguely as the rules will permit. So, the absence of any particular date here doesn't surprise me.

poutine · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:18 am

This isn't a multi-owner lawsuit, exponentially increasing the odds that Orly must and will be deposed. As far as her deposition is concerned in this case, her activities as a vexatious litigant and as a birther are most certainly relevant.

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:23 am

Zillow claims that the property at 31912 Monarch Crest, Laguna Niguel, was "last sold" on April 2000 for $1,050,000. No "year built" is shown. It may be in the "guard-gated community" of The Pinnacle at Monarch Crest.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23548

poutine wrote:

This isn't a multi-owner lawsuit, exponentially increasing the odds that Orly must and will be deposed. As far as her deposition is concerned in this case, her activities as a vexatious litigant and as a birther are most certainly relevant.

Yep, pretty standard question...
Q Have you ever been involved in any other lawsuits as either a plaintiff or defendant?
A Yes.

Then there will be a long list, and a summary of what each one involved, the venue, who the attorneys were, what the outcome was, etc.

$\:D/$

poutine · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:42 am

realist wrote:

poutine wrote:

This isn't a multi-owner lawsuit, exponentially increasing the odds that Orly must and will be deposed. As far as her deposition is concerned in this case, her activities as a vexatious litigant and as a birther are most certainly relevant.

Yep, pretty standard question...
Q Have you ever been involved in any other lawsuits as either a plaintiff or defendant?
A Yes.

Then there will be a long list, and a summary of what each one involved, the venue, who the attorneys were, what the outcome was, etc.

$\:D/$

Hopefully, someone will get a chance to tip defense counsel off that he or she should focus on this very question in the defense's interrogatories, before even getting to deposition. The fact is that Orly has absolutely no credibility as a witness. Let her attorney put her on the stand to testify in front of a jury, which is being asked to award her hundreds of thousands of someone else's dollars. She has already been sanctioned by a court for filing frivolous lawsuits. Now she wants to file another one, except, we are to believe that it isn't frivolous? The defense needs to know about this when evaluating her case.

Foggy · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:45 am

realist wrote:

Q Have you ever been involved in any other lawsuits as either a plaintiff or defendant?
A Yes.

Except it's Orly.

Quote:

Q Have you ever been involved in any other lawsuits as either a plaintiff or defendant?

A On any case relevant to this one, no.

Q Have you been involved in lawsuits not relevant to this one?

A Objection: Irrelevant.

Q Ma'am, you're required to answer the question, even if there's an objection. If the case goes to trial, the judge can rule on the objection before the transcript is read to the jury.

A Objection: Corrupt.

Q Corrupt? Is that an objection?

A Objection: Harassment, abuse, RICO, emission hoses, quo warranto, and district court of bun-dogs. What's good for the goose, good for the gender.

Honest to doG, nobody will ever successfully complete a deposition of the great Orly Taitz without a judge or magistrate personally supervising and ordering her to answer the questions. There is no other option that's workable.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23548

Oh, c'mon... Orly would be proud to list all her cases against the Obama Nazi regime and 'splain every one of them... in minute detail and how she, decedent attorney was denied by corrupt and bought-off judges.

She would then have them all on yet another court record which she could attach to all her upcoming litigation. $\:D/$

MrBrown · **Joined:** Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:21 pm **Posts:** 411

poutine wrote:

realist wrote:

poutine wrote:

This isn't a multi-owner lawsuit, exponentially increasing the odds that Orly must and will be deposed. As far as her deposition is concerned in this case, her activities as a vexatious litigant and as a birther are most certainly relevant.

Yep, pretty standard question...
Q Have you ever been involved in any other lawsuits as either a plaintiff or defendant?
A Yes.

Then there will be a long list, and a summary of what each one involved, the venue, who the attorneys were, what the outcome was, etc.

$\:D/$

Hopefully, someone will get a chance to tip defense counsel off that he or she should focus on this very question in the defense's interrogatories, before even getting to deposition. The fact is that Orly has absolutely no credibility as a witness. Let her attorney put her on the stand to testify in front of a jury, which is being asked to award her hundreds of thousands of someone else's dollars. She has already been sanctioned by a court for filing frivolous lawsuits. Now she wants to file another one, except, we are to believe that it isn't frivolous? The defense needs to know about this when evaluating her case.

In all fairness to the Taitz's, this case should be judged on the merits, not upon her litigious history. If the workmanship sucked, and there was damage, that is the primary relevant issue. Think about it, lawyers - some of you may have been plaintiffs in a similar situation, suing another "profession" you hired because of malpractice. Your legal history, which is your chosen profession, should not be relevant to the quality of work by the professionals you hired.
But....it is defense counsel's duty to drag into view the trunk full of frivolous lawsuits this infamous plaintiff has initiated......frivolous lawsuits filed not as a professional attorney representing clients, but as a personal political crusade....tilting at windmills, pro bono....
Most of society agrees with Adam Smith's definition and would call her "irrational" for devoting so much effort for no reward., Defense counsel for this particular case could dig into that a bit and find the treasure s/he seeks. "Irrational" is an apt description.
Sure hope the person presiding over the hearing isn't one of the millions of California Obots........

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4216

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=38313 :twisted:

Quote:

Yahoo news: “Americans Elect” put on the ballot in every state a third choice for the US Presidency-former congressman and former Governor of LA Buddy Roehmer, the only candidate, who demands curbing WTO GATT and to stop outsourcing of missions of American jobs to slave labor in China and other Third World countries

Posted on | April 17, 2012 | No Comments

Buddy Roemer (ABC News)

Third option in presidential election

A group known as Americans Elect is determined to give voters an alternative to Obama and Romney.

Here is a comment, saying that this group will split the vote. This is a possibility. On the other hand, they might take votes from Obama as well. Do you remember Ross Perot. He got 11-12% of the vote. I believe that it is time for us to go to Buddy Roehmer and Romney and demand to stand up and speak up on the issue of Obama’s forged documents. It is also time to go to Romney and demand to make a stand on curbing WTOGatt and bringing American jobs back to American citizens.

At this time we have a great opportunity to exert pressure on both Roehmer and Romney AND DEMAND ACTION

Dawn
Submitted on 2012/04/17 at 6:49 am

OMG Orly. This group has ties to Obama and is working to split the vote. =))

We know Obama will do ANYTHING to win. Read it and weep.

http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2012/04/03/m ... tial-vote/

Yahoo news: “Americans Elect” put on the ballot in every state a third choice for the US Presidency-former congressman and former Governor of LA Buddy Roehmer, the only candidate, who demands curbing WTO GATT and to stop outsourcing of missions of American jobs to slave labor in China and other Third World countries
0 View Post
Share

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9356

MrBrown wrote:

In all fairness to the Taitz's, this case should be judged on the merits, not upon her litigious history. If the workmanship sucked, and there was damage, that is the primary relevant issue.

The credibility of a witness is always relevant. If everyone Orly meets ends up as the target of outlandish accusations, why should anyone believe her this time? If the defense can keep Orly off the stand as a witness, they might be able to do it with the threat of a credibility-destroying cross examination.

Of course, they might prefer having Orly on the stand than Yosi. I can't imagine Orly not doing something to disgust and enrage the judge and jury.

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4216

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=38382 :evil:

Quote:

Why is WND and ORYR trumpeting foreign media articles about Arpaio, but are censoring out this article? Is it because Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi of WND are getting maximum profit from advertising Arpaio, so they are suppressing news about my work, just as Obama is suppresing news about his birth certificate

Posted on | April 17, 2012 | No Comments

Article by Dr. Orly Taitz published in “Pravda” English edition

Yet another fucked-up link job by Orly.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:15 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

Of course, they might prefer having Orly on the stand than Yosi. I can't imagine Orly not doing something to disgust and enrage the judge and jury.

I don't know why O'rly would be used as a witness for a construction claim. Either the workmanship was faulty or it was not. Is O'rly any kind of construction expert or engineer? I think not. IANAL but I would expect the defendant and the plaintiff to both bring in real experts.

Compared to the Moskvich 2140, the house may well be built to some fairly high standards.

Piffle · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:28 pm

The real question in everyone's mind: Will the contractor depose & call Fluffy?

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6631

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

That was the first thing I noticed in a barebones pleading with few specifics but many quotations from the statute.

I figured they quoted all the parts of the house from the statute because the place is leaking so bad, they can't tell where it's all coming from, except since they didn't cite 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, they know it's not from the plumbing. It's odd because the roof construction, the windows/doors, the stucco, the tile are all different trades/ subs. You might have a roof that leaks because the apprentice on the job that day forgot to overlap the paper. Or a few windows/doors that leak because somebody forgot the caulk. Or the stucco leaks because they applied the sealer when the temp was too low. Or some tile that pop because they used bondera and didn't grout it right away. It's pretty unusual if everybody messed up.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23548

ZekeB wrote:

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

Of course, they might prefer having Orly on the stand than Yosi. I can't imagine Orly not doing something to disgust and enrage the judge and jury.

I don't know why O'rly would be used as a witness for a construction claim. Either the workmanship was faulty or it was not. Is O'rly any kind of construction expert or engineer? I think not. IANAL but I would expect the defendant and the plaintiff to both bring in real experts.

Compared to the Moskvich 2140, the house may well be built to some fairly high standards.

She and/or Yosi would testify as to what happened and where and the damage they observed and where. They would have receipts for any repairs they made, the people that made them may testify, and the repairmen would testify as to what they found when they did the repair as to the cause and the remedial actions they took, and if necessary experts on code/acceptable construction methods in the industry etc would testify.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:40 pm

If the roof wasn't sealed properly, it would have been leaking back at Day 1. I don't know what kind of tile was used and why it is falling off. It may well be that Yosi had them cut a few corners in the interest of saving a few bucks. You get what you pay for. If the house is 10+ years old, you would have to expect that some maintenance would need to be done. Maybe O'rly will win the Senatorial election and move to DC. Ya never know. :lol:

poutine · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:47 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

MrBrown wrote:

In all fairness to the Taitz's, this case should be judged on the merits, not upon her litigious history. If the workmanship sucked, and there was damage, that is the primary relevant issue.

The credibility of a witness is always relevant. If everyone Orly meets ends up as the target of outlandish accusations, why should anyone believe her this time? If the defense can keep Orly off the stand as a witness, they might be able to do it with the threat of a credibility-destroying cross examination.

Of course, they might prefer having Orly on the stand than Yosi. I can't imagine Orly not doing something to disgust and enrage the judge and jury.

100% agreement. The point about us "lawyers" being judged on past cases is irrelevant. Lawyers are not permitted to offer testimony as admissible evidence in court. Testimony comes from witnesses, not lawyers. Juries are entitled to hear evidence that impeaches the credibility of witnesses, in order to assess the truth or falsity of their testimony. The fact is that not one single word Orly Taitz could offer in testimony during a construction defect lawsuit would strike me as having a shred of crediblity. As a juror, knowing what I know about her, I would disregard every single thing she said completely.

Should there be limits on what evidence of her vexatious and abusive litigant history can be presented, to prevent inflaming the jury? Sure. Reasonable ones. But that shouldn't prevent some evidence of her misconduct in court from coming in.

mimi · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:48 pm

Seriously. After a big storm my sister walks around her house looking down. She's looking for broken pieces of tile. Then she looks up.

You gotta replace some here and there.

Obly prolly never replaced a one of them.

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3496

It's too bad for Orly that she's destroyed her own credibility by being a prolific and habitual liar.

Because with most people, I'd assume maybe there was some there there, as we've all had homes and we all know what it takes to build and maintain one. And all the contractors I know who are still in business have been working budgets on a shoestring for several years now.

But with Orly Taitz, we know there isn't a person who steps in her path who doesn't meet her wrath, if they disagree with her in any way. When she's on the hook to write a big check for their services, they're even more vulnerable, and she's trained herself to invent a disagreement. Now she can sue them and play ego games, and potentially "win."

I'd guess there's just as much chance that Orly & Yosef are looking for an easy payout as there is the possibility that the contractor's work was shoddy and incomplete.

Probably just as likely that when engaged, the contractor laughed off her birther spiel for the bullshit that it is, leading Orly to go on the warpath and exact her legal vendetta.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9356

poutine wrote:

Should there be limits on what evidence of her vexatious and abusive litigant history can be presented, to prevent inflaming the jury? Sure. Reasonable ones. But that shouldn't prevent some evidence of her misconduct in court from coming in.

To continue my fantasy about being a judge from the other thread for a bit, I think a good judge would probably limit the cross examination about Orly's dishonesty to lies in court and perhaps even lies under oath. We've uncovered on this forum all kinds of lies, from little lies like claiming to be familiar with a particular case in Judge Land's court to big lies like telling one court one thing and another court another. Then, there is always her performance as a "witness" in Georgia and Indiana, both of which are on videotape.

I think those would carry the full sting of exposing Orly's dishonesty. An exhaustive cross examination on every lie she ever told in her life would probably get cumulative pretty quickly.

However, at a deposition, all of that would be fair game. Every bit.

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

When's Lev's answer due?

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Orly's latest poopies.....

Who is online