Fava -- Correct on everything except Iskander being removed from the suit. In apparent violation of the automatic stay, Taitz proceeded against Iskander. Her judgment against him is VOID unless Taitz can prove that she had no relationship to Medical Dental when notice was sent. (That's going to be hard. She was its owner and attorney.)

In reviewing the bankruptcy file some more I found the document by which the bankruptcy court notice center dutifully and routinely sent notice to Taitz of the bankrupt filing and the first meeting of creditors. It's document no. 6, below.

I have it on Good Authority that Jack Ryan will shortly post this notice document.

Taitz is going to have to prove that she did not receive routine notice. Of course, her word is her bond. And her legal practice is so well organized that who would disbelieve her? (Her sloppy paperwork will be held against her here.)

So shall it be written, so shall it be done.

I live to serve.

Ok, Taitz. Up until now your malpractice has been nothing but an annoyance to the various courts where you have filed. Furthermore, you have chosen to file your recent cases as pro se - isolating yourself somewhat from oversight of the California Bar. In the case of MDD, LLC v Pierson, you acted as an attorney representing a corporation. You lied to the court. You hid evidence of a bankruptcy which would have directly impacted the outcome of this case. You are now lying to the Bankruptcy Court. You proved to be so incompetent that you could not articulate a simple judgment into words that the court would be willing to sign. Your behavior in this case has gone beyond that of mere annoyance. You have violated legal ethics. You have harmed others. It's time for the California Bar to take a good long look at suspending or disbarring you.

Pfffft.

She's a civil rights attorney, a political decedent, working on the biggest konstitooshunal kase of all time in this dire nashunal emergency. These are mere details. Only little people have to follow the law. The Chaleria only has to follow Orlylaw.

So she is claiming collusion and fraud by the trustee, who she says did not conduct due diligence. But of course Taitz did not attend the creditor's meeting to conduct her own due diligence, despite receiving notice from the clerk of the bankruptcy court.

And once again her memorandum of points and authorities is completely authority free. No law is cited that allows her to set aside the discharge whatsoever.

As I recall, the trial court in the landlord-tenant case cautioned her that proceeding against Iskander could subject her to sanctions for violating the automatic stay in his bankruptcy case. She proceeded anyway.

Um, she filed #22 and #23 on the same day basically alleging the same thing? After losing a motion the week before? Is that right?

Looks like it. I think she was trying to set aside the discharge and is now seeking to re-open the bankruptcy. But we'll let the legal genius figure it out all by her lonesome.

I hear Donofrio is (about to become) quite knowledgeable in bankruptcy law.

Berg also knows a bit about ... oh; wait; nevermind.

Oh, I see now. The first motion was denied because the case was closed before she came forward to object to the discharge. So now she is filing a motion to reopen it first and then to set aside the discharge in two, simultaneous, nearly identical motions.

They are hard to distinguish from one another since neither one of them mentions a statute or case in support of the requested remedy.

I hate to score any points for O'rly (and maybe I'm not), but there's something that doesn't quite make sense here. If all three of the defendants entered into a ten year sub-lease for an office suite, and two of these defendants closed up their practice, how could Pierson claim to not know about any default on the lease? Was he still paying his portion of the lease? If so, to whom?

In the original lawsuit, it would appear the issue of whether there was a breach of the lease was uncontested. The issue was whether Taitz took adequate measures to re-lease the place.

Somerset -- The third partner isn't claiming ignorance of a breach of the lease. He's claiming ignorance of the lawsuit Taitz filed and failed to serve on him. According to Dr. Pierson, he was never served with the lawsuit.

Remember, by the time Taitz filed the lawsuit, the three chiropractors had abandoned their joint practice at Taitz's office building. How do we know? Because in her mess of a complaint she pleaded that the tenants had vacated the premises and that her efforts to re-lease the premises had been unsuccessful.

Predictions:

1. The default judgment will be set aside.

2. Taitz will then have to re-try the case. If she wins, Dr. Pierson will declare bankruptcy (after having had an extra 18+ months to get his affairs "in order"). Or, if Dr. Pierson's counsel mounts a challenge to Taitz's evidence, he might actually win.

3. The bottom line is that after lots of effort Taitz will wind up with nothing except a lot of filing fees and having spent a lot of her time (the latter being valueless except that forcing Taitz to expend time on this lawsuit keeps her from her obsession of filing frivolous lawsuits against President Obama).

Welcome to the world of litigation, Orly!

I see. Thanks, Stern and Bob. My gut feel is that he probably knew about the suit, but yeah, if O'rly failed to properly serve him, then it was probably smart to keep his mouth shut and wait for the dust to settle.

Orly has mentioned Al Capone in a couple her motions (I can't recall which ones right now) and talked about how the great crime boss was brought down by IRS problems. Maybe this case will be Orly's "Al Capone" moment. We can only hope.

No. Nothing will happen to Taitz after all the screeching. But she also won't be collecting on that judgment. The current judgment she is so proud of is worthless.

You'd think that after the Keyes case Taitz would learn about service of process. But I guess the word "learn" should not be in the same paragraph with the word "Taitz."

This just feels like justice to me. Almost $300K out the window because Orly couldn't serve one of the plaintiffs properly. Almost $300K out the window because Orly didn't keep track of her mail.

$300K because she is utterly incompetent, narcissistic and downright ridiculous. $300K that she was soooooo close to having.

Karma's a bitch, Orly.








Excellent points. I hadn't considered that Orly was filing Pro Se as a way to keep the CA Bar off of her back.

Now there is no doubt about Orly's ability to harm those who are involved with her legally. At least the greatest harm was to herself.



Why would Orly be allowed to refile against Pierson? This was all due to her negligence.



I'm dying to read Orly's response to Pierson's claim of no service. What did she do; open the door with her key (which would be illegal, at least in OR) and put an envelope on the desk? Did she slide the envelope under the door where it wasn't seen and then disappeared? Did she tape it to the door and it disappeared? Just how did she try to serve it (even though incorrectly).

Orly reports learning of Johnson's bankruptcy for the first time on Nov 15th, even though the letter notifying her that she needed to cancel the Dec hearing was dated Nov 9th. Orly hasn't been opening her mail ... or was she sabotaged?

Remember this:



Date of posting at Orly's and TFB? Nov 15th! I think Orly made up the mail box thingy for court!!

Orly finally tries to secure her website once she did not receive the Nov 9th letter about Johnson's bankruptcy. Only after she has lost $300K does she give a shit.


Orly has had quite the month.

*Nov 12th: Orly files Emergency Petition in Taitz v Fuddy

*Nov 13th: Orly files NH Election Challenge

*Nov 15th: Orly learns of Johnson's bankruptcy

*Nov 16th: Orly files Amended Motion for Rehearing in Taitz v Fuddy

*Nov 17th: Johnson's bankruptcy is discharged

*Nov 17th: Orly flies to NH

*Nov 18th: Elections hearing in NH

*Nov 19th: Orly returns to CA

*Nov 22nd: Orly demands a Rehearing in NH

*Nov 22nd: Orly files an Emergency Motion (#1) to reopen Johnson's bankruptcy (#19)

*Nov 23rd: Emergency motion regarding Johnson's bankruptcy is denied (#20)

*Nov 23rd: Orly files Appeal in Taitz v Dunn

*Nov 25th: Orly files Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Taitz v Ruemmler Appeal

*Nov 28th: Orly files an Ex Parte Emergency Motion (#2) to reopen Johnson's bankruptcy (#22)

*Nov 28th: Orly files a Notice of Motion and Motion regarding Johnson's bankruptcy (#23)

*Nov 29th: Orly flies to HI

*Nov 29th: Orly submits the Petition for the Emergency Hearing With the Chief Elections Officer in HI

*Nov 30th: Taitz v Fuddy Hearing in HI

*Dec 1st: Orly returns to CA

*Dec 1st: Motion for Extension of Time in GA

*Dec 2nd: Orly Posts her Pre-Trial Order for the Eligibility Challenge in GA

*Dec 3rd: Formal NH Hearing Decision released

*Dec 3rd: NH Request for Rehearing is denied

*Dec 4th: Orly accidentally outs all 9 NH Republitards in NH

*Dec 5th: HI tells Orly No to Elections Challenge

*Dec 7th: Orly files Reply to Opposition of Amended Motion in Taitz v Fuddy

*Dec 7th: Ex-Parte Application by Pierson to Continue Debtor Exam

*Dec 8th: Orly files Taitz et al v Gardner et al with the NH Supreme Court

*Dec 9th: Orly files her First Amended Complaint in GA

*Dec 9th: Orly's Motion to Set Aside Discharge of Debtor Johnson's bankruptcy (#23) is denied

*Dec 9th: Orly's Motion to Reopen Bankruptcy (#22) is scheduled for hearing on Feb 6th, 2012


Orly charged nothing for all of this work; she lost $300K!! And the cost of travel.

She will never, ever understand service. Orly thinks she understands service but thug Judges let everyone else get away with "I haven't been served" excuses. It took her 9 freaking months to serve in Keyes, and that only occurred because Judge Carter asked Obama's lawyers to help him out and accept service after a hearing. Orly repeated, for months and months and months that she was serving Obama correctly. No matter how many people explained service to her, she dug in her heals and insisted she was write.

Orly lives in the world of "shoulds" rather than the world of "what is".

This woman would rather waste time filing and filing, and paying to file all her crap than pay a process server. She would rather pay $250 to file a new motion and not serve it correctly than spend $30-50 to correctly serve her original motion and not have to file additional motions/appeals/etc as often.

Don't confuse Pierson's claim (and motion) that he wasn't served with Johnson's bankruptcy. You've done that and conflated the dates for the Pierson and Johnson motions.

Pierson wasn't served, so he should be able to get the default judgment vacated, returning to the status quo ante. Orly can have him served (she can't do it herself) and then they're off to the races.

Despite Taitz's utter incompetence, the real reason why she won't collect $300,000 is because the economy sucks and she leased the space to financially weak tenants who went out of business.

Taitz has had a hell of a last 6 weeks. I don't think I could survive all that bad news during that period of time. And for a lawyer to draft competent pleadings to cover all the things Taitz did would require that lawyer to work 24/7. Since most of Taitz's pleadings are legally vacuous screechings, and cut and paste lies, it's easy for her.

There are proper ways of going about such a thing and I certainly hope nobody mentions them. Of course, they'd require her actually not having received notice. Considering she is on the creditor matrix, I estimate the odds of that at being around 0.

Thank you for your service fighting for our freedom (to laugh until our sides ache).



No Orlylaw emergency motion is really complete without a request for the court to conduct a sua sponte investigation, is it?

Only a Moldovan Communist with no understanding whatsoever of the American legal system would even dream of asking a U.S. court to "investigate" on its own. Yet again, Orly shows her absolute ignorance of American legal procedure.

Free hint, Orly. It's up to YOU to do your own goddamn investigation.

I think I just forgot to add Pierson's claim. If there is something else that I don't see or screwed up, I need directions! I didn't add Pierson's default judgement because it happened months ago. But I added his recent motion to vacate.

I will give Orly this; the woman isn't lazy. The poor quality of her work is due to incompetence, not laziness. But ya, she doesn't put effort into her pleadings. She does put energy into her work though. Doing all she did (badly) in 3 weeks would have killed me.

I know that Johnson is noncollectable. But had Orly not screwed up, she may have received some money. Orly tossed any potential of $300K out the window.

Question. Orly tells Johnson's lawyer that he has to sell his practice and sell it in good faith so that she is paid (had she followed her own case and made certain she was in line for payment). C/Would Johnson be required to sell his business; essentially she is saying that he has to sell his clients and then he has to move his business to another location! If Johnson had a small business that manufactured something or sold a product, c/would he be instructed to sell his business as an asset?

Can a business owner be forced to sell a business if it is his sole source of employment and if it is his only valuable asset?

IMHO, this is key to understanding the deep roots of Jorlyprudence (and for a moment, I'm being serious): It's fundamentally an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial system. And it's best explained with reference to the old Soviet system which, she is wont to remind us, she remembers well.

From what little I've read about the old Soviet system, they took some of the inquisitorial tenets of the civil law, shot them up with more steroids than they administered to the Soviet women's swimming teams and then implanted the political hammer and sickle. This was Orly's view of justice growing up and it goes a long way to explaining Orlylaw. For example:

1. She has no intuitive grasp of where the burden of proof lies.

2. She does not in any way consider her adversary to be an equal opposing party. (And, hence, minor niceties such as proper notification, service, meet-and-confer responsibilities and dealing with opposing attorneys with courtesy and comity are not, in her view, important parts of the process).

3. She sees the plaintiff's role as one of bringing the charges and seeding suspicions.

4. Once sufficient suspicions are seeded, she thinks the court's proper role is to investigate and prosecute until and unless it can be shown that the charges are unfounded. (Her notion of sua sponte action by the court goes beyond misunderstanding of the term; she expects a proper court to use its power to do whatever is necessary.)

5. She believes it is the court's responsibility to fit her acusations to the law and, if necessary, to make up "law" whole cloth if it is necessary to preserve the state's interest.

6. As a corollary to #5, she believes it is futile to suggest to the court what the law is. Thus, she has no understanding of the briefing process. In our system, opposing attorneys are allowed (and expected) to educate the judge(s) (or, more accurately, to bring to the court's attention) as to what legal principles apply, why they apply and the authorities from which they are derived. American lawyers understand that no judge can be presumed to know all of the law and, therefore, the briefing process is one by which the parties actually assist the court in reaching correct legal holdings.

7. Orly invariably attributes her loses to corruption (perhaps not a bad assumption in the old Soviet system) and believes that courts routinely make political decisions. This explains, in part, why she takes her suitcase full of allegations that are proven losers and then shops them from court to court and state to state. After all, it only takes one judge with the courage (read: correct political alignment) for her to succeed, right?

8. Because the Orlylaw practitioner views the court as an "inquisitor of general jurisdiction", if follows that no proceeding is limited to the allegations in the complaint or, for that matter, to the named parties. (In some respects, she believes that a trial court should behave more like a grand jury, whose investigations can potentially rope in additional perps who were not part of an initial proposed bill.) In short, she is clueless about why she cannot sue one party for the purpose of reaching a nonparty to her suit.

The list goes on.

Only in Orlylaw.

I will leave to the California ESQs on the forum to explain property exemptions in that state, but if it is like most states, the debtor's "tools of the trade" are exempt.

Orly doesn't understand bankruptcy law. (Well, she doesn't understand any law.) In bankruptcy, the debtor's assets are collected (the "estate") and are held in trust by the trustee for the benefit of the creditors. The trustee liquidates (i.e., sells) the assets and the funds are distributed to the creditors who have proven their claims against the debtor. Assets that are exempt or subject to valid liens are not liquidated. (Legal ownership of exempt assets is ultimately returned to the debtor. In reality, the assets never leave the possession of the debtor.) The debtor is discharged from most debts that he owed on or before the date of filing. (Certain debts -- such as unpaid spousal and child support, income taxes assessed less than three years, all unpaid employment taxes, federally-guaranteed student loans, fines and penalties, and judgments for fraud and certain intentional torts -- are nondischargeable.)

Early in the case notice is sent to known creditors that the debtor identifies when he files he petition in bankruptcy. A creditor must then file a proof of claim in order to participate in any distribution of the estate. If the debtor disputes the claim, the court will resolve it through litigation; the creditor has the burden of proving that the debtor owes him money. Only creditors who filed proof of their claims will receive distribution from the estate. Any creditor who was identified and failed to file a proof of claim has waived his claim, and the obligation will be discharged when the court enters the Order of Discharge at the conclusion of the

After all the claims are received and disputed claims resolved, the trustee begins the process of liquidating the nonexempt assets and distributing the estate. Secured claims are paid from the proceeds of the collateral; if the collateral is insufficient to pay the claim in full, the balance becomes an unsecured claim. Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.) sets out the order in which the estate is paid out. Administrative costs of the estate are among the first paid, then the claims for debt are paid. What remains after that is distributed to the unsecured creditors. If estate is insufficient to pay 100% of all claims, the unsecured creditors get paid a fraction of their claim or maybe nothing at all.

Unsecured creditors are not equal in the distribution. Some debts have priority and there is a class of certain creditors who, by law, enjoy a "superpriority." Whether, and how much, a creditor gets paid depends upon where he stands in the hierarchy. Unsecured claims in the higher priority are paid in full before claims in a lower priority receive anything. Non-priority unsecured creditors (like Orly) get paid last.
___________________

What I have described is a Chapter 7 proceeding. In 2005 Congress overhauled the Bankruptcy Code at the insistence of banks and credit card companies, and now most individual debtors are forced into a Chapter 13 proceeding. In Chapter 13, the debtor proposes and the Bankruptcy Court approves a debt repayment plan (minimum of 36 months and maximum of 60 months) that is funded by the excess of his earnings over an austere budget of living expenses. Each month a sum is paid over to the trustee, and creditors are paid from this -- again, in the priority of their claims. At the end of the plan period, all debts not 100% satisfied are discharged.
___________________

Getting back to your question, LMK, individuals with regular earnings and above-average income (such as chiropractors) are not eligible for a Chapter 7 liquidation. They undergo a Chapter 13 reorganization, which is basically an installment plan. They keep most of their assets. So, the answer is, Orly is wrong. Orly doesn't understand law.

But then, we already knew that.